Mahadeo Vs State of U.P..

Page 1

‘ REPORTABLE’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2944 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14541 of 2010]

Mahadeo (D) through LRs & Ors. …..Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. ….Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2945 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14741 of 2010]

& CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2946 OF 2013

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7878 of 2010]

Bimal Chand Jain (D) through LRs & Ors. …..Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. ….Respondents

and

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2947 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7892 of 2010]

Trilok Ram Ahuja & Ors. …..Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M.Y.EQBAL, J.

Page 2

Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated

2.12.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High

Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 7748 of 2002 and 21407 of

2002 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein

were disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 – Meerut

Development Authority to press its resolution dated 17.09.1997

if the said Authority is not in need of the land so acquired and

the orders dated 9.4.2010 whereby the review applications filed

against the orders dated 2.12.2009 in the said writ petitions

were rejected.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The

appellants filed the aforementioned writ petitions seeking the

following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to accept the proposal for withdrawing from acquisition in view of the resolution dated 17.9.97 submitted by the Meerut Development Authority at the earliest within a period to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the entire land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the notification u/s 4 dated 27.1.1990 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act dated 7.3.90.

2

Page 3

ii-a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/decision communicated by letter dated 24.08.2002 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition).

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands forcibly in pursuance of the acquisition for declaration was issued u/s 6 of the Act on 6.3.90.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the damages for financial loss, mental agony and pain to the petitioners in view of section 48(2) of the Act.

v. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vi. Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”

4. It appears that vide Notification dated 27.1.1990

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,

“the Act”), the State of U.P. proposed to acquire 246.931 acres

of land situated at Village Abdullapur, Pargana, Tehsil and

District Meerut. Since the land was alleged to have been

urgently required by the State, the provision of Section 17(1) of

the Act was invoked. The aforesaid land was sought to be

acquired for the purpose of construction of a

residential/commercial building under planned Development

3

Page 4

Scheme by the Meerut Development Authority (for short, “the

MDA”). Since Section 17(1) of the Act was invoked, inquiry

under Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. Thereafter,

declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1)&(4) of the

Act was made on 18.3.1990 which was published in a daily

newspaper. Consequently, notice under Section 9 of the Act was

issued and pursuant to that appellants are said to have filed

their objections. On 17.3.1992, respondent No. 3 – the Special

Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut passed an award. After the said

award, the appellants applied before the Land Acquisition Officer

on 24.4.1992 for making a reference under Section 18 of the

said Act and accordingly respondent No. 3 referred the matter to

the District Judge vide order dated 22.9.1997.

5. The appellants’ case is that by resolution dated

17.9.1997, respondent No. 4 – the MDA decided to withdraw the

acquisition of the land except the land measuring 42.018 acres

for which compensation was paid. The MDA is said to have

decided to de-requisition the land measuring 204.912 acres. It

appears that in 2001-2002 meetings were held and

correspondences exchanged between the authorities, the

District Magistrate, Meerut and the State Government and

ultimately the State Government decided not to accede to the

4

Page 5

decision of the MDA for de-requisition of the land. The

appellants, therefore, on these facts, filed the aforementioned

writ petitions seeking the reliefs quoted hereinbefore.

6. We have heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior

counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional

Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State

at the very outset submitted that although the appellants

sought several reliefs in the writ petitions before the High Court

but the relief was confined to only a direction upon respondent

No. 4 to press the resolution dated 17.9.1997. The High Court,

therefore, by the impugned orders disposed of the writ petitions

with a direction to the Development Authority to press its

resolution if the Authority is not in need of the said land. The

impugned orders passed by the High Court dated 2.12.2009 is

reproduced hereinbelow:

“In this petition, the original owners are …… They have not pressed other reliefs, except the relief seeking a writ of mandamus to command the Meerut Development Authority, Respondent No. 4 to press the resolution dated 14.05.02, which has been rejected by the Government. A perusal of the rejection order reveals that rejection is not based for other reasons, except that the land proposed to be released under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, has been thrust upon the development authority to sell it out so that its financial position is improved.

5

Page 6

This is no reason. The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act is made for the public purpose if needed. No doubt the town plan development of the council is a public purpose done by the development authority but the development authority when itself says that is not needed, then the condition of acquisition is not fulfilled as contained in the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore reason of rejection is not germane to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Development Authority is directed to press its resolution if the authority is not in need of the said land.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.”

8. Dissatisfied with the orders passed by the High

Court, the appellants have moved these appeals by special

leave.

9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

assailed the orders passed by the High Court, firstly on the

ground that there is apparent error in the orders of the High

Court inasmuch as the appellants never confined their reliefs

only to the extent of directing the MDA to press its resolution if

the Authority is not in the need of the said land. Learned

counsel submitted that the MDA in clear terms already

expressed its opinion in the resolution dated 17.9.1997 that the

land is not required by the Authority for any development

purpose. Thus, the High Court fell in error in placing onus again

on the MDA to press for resolution. According to the learned

6

Page 7

counsel, the refusal of the State Government in rejecting the

proposal of the Authority is illegal and liable to be set aside.

10. Some of the important facts which are not in dispute can

be summarized as under:

(i) Notification under Section 4 and Declaration

under Section 6 were issued for the acquisition

of 246.931 acres of the land for the purpose of

construction of residential/commercial building

under the planned Development Scheme in

the District of Meerut by the MDA;

(ii) Inquiry under Section 5A of the Act was

dispensed with since provision of Section

17(1)&(4) was invoked;

(iii) In response to the notice under Section 9(1) of

the Act, the appellant-land owners filed their

objections and finally the award under Section

11 of the Act was passed on 17.3.1992 by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer; and

7

Page 8

(iv) As requested by the appellants and other land

owners, reference under Section 18 of the Act

was made on 22.9.1997.

11. The respondent-MDA has filed a detailed counter

affidavit stating inter alia that the land was acquired for Ganga

Nagar Housing Extension Scheme because of the need for

housing accommodation and to prevent unplanned growth of

construction. Notices were issued under Section 9(1) inviting

objections and after completing all the procedure award was

passed on 17.03.1992.

12. After the said award, a sum of Rs. 5.32 crores out of

the total amount of Rs.5.51 crores was deposited. The

appellants filed reference application for enhancement of

compensation in 2002. It was further stated that possession of

the land so acquired was taken by the State Government and

delivered to MDA in 2002. The MDA further stated that out of

246 acres of land, approximately 125 acres of land has already

been allotted for residential and institutional use as per the

Master Plan.

13. It is stated that the MDA has already spent Rs. 21

crores for development since 2002 which includes construction

of overhead tanks, roads, sewage treatment plant etc. It is

stated that the earlier request of MDA was withdrawn by passing

8

Page 9

fresh resolution on 15.03.2002 in order to develop the entire

acquired land as Ganga Nagar Colony. The MDA further stated

that rest of the acquired land is also being developed making a

huge investment on roads, sewage and other civic amenities.

14. Lastly, it has been brought on record that some of

the appellants were not the original owners of the land at the

time when notifications under Section 4, 6 and 9 of the Act were

issued. It has further been brought to our notice that some of

the appellants are the purchasers of the land from the land

owners after the notification was issued under Section 4 of the

Act.

15. On these facts, the sole question, therefore, that

falls for consideration is as to whether merely because of

internal correspondences between the MDA and the State that

by the resolution dated 17.9.1997 the MDA took a decision to

withdraw the acquisition and to get approval from the State

Government, a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the

State or the MDA to denotify or de-requisition the land which

was acquired after following the due process of law and an

award to that effect has been passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer.

16. There is no dispute with regard to the settled

proposition of law that once the land is acquired and mandatory

9

Page 10

requirements are complied with including possession having been

taken the land vests in the State Government free from all

encumbrances. Even if some unutilised land remains, it cannot be

re-conveyed or re-assigned to the erstwhile owner by invoking the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This Court in the case of

Govt. of A.P. and Anr. vs. V. Syed Akbar AIR 2005 SC 492 held

that :-

“It is neither debated nor disputed as regards the valid acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the possession of the land had been taken. By virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the acquired land has vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. In the instant case, even under Section 48, the Government could not withdraw from acquisition or to reconvey the said land to the respondent as the possession of the land had already been taken. The position of law is well settled. In State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr. (1997) 5 SCC 432 para 4 of the said judgment reads: (SCC p. 433)

“4. In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be

10

Page 11

put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting a higher value.”

17. In the case of Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. vs.

State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517, a 3-Judge Bench of

this Court after considering various provisions including Section

17 of the Act observed as under:

“14. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possession the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions of Section 11-A are intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11-A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the

11

Page 12

owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11-A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner.”

18. Indisputably, land in question was acquired by the

State Government for the purpose of expansion of city i.e.

construction of residential/commercial building under planned

development scheme by the Meerut Development Authority and

that major portion of the land has already been utilized by the

Authority. Merely because some land was left at the relevant

time, that does not give any right to the Authority to send

proposal to the Government for release of the land in favour of

the land owners. The impugned orders passed by the High

Court directing the Authority to press the Resolution are

absolutely unwarranted in law.

19. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in these

appeals which are accordingly dismissed.

………………………………..J. (Surinder Singh Nijjar)

………………………………..J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

12

Page 13

New Delhi, April 08, 2013.

13