Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2118 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3162 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2139 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3176 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2121 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3415 of 1998, Civil Appeal No. 3561 of 1998, Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 1999, Civil Appeal.... Case: 1. Tika Ram and Ors., 2. Saroj Agarwal, 3. Shivaji Nagar Sahakari Girah Nirman Samiti Ltd., 4. Pratap Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. , 5. Shama Timber Works and Anr., 6. Ganga Bux Singh and Ors., 7. Janta Steel Industry and Anr., 8. Sachin Surkhi Udyog and Anr., 9. Awadh Industries and Ors., 10. Pragatisheel Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., 11. Indira Nagar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., 12. Swarg Ashram Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. Supreme Court

Case Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 2116-2118 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3162 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2139 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3176 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2121 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3415 of 1998, Civil Appeal No. 3561 of 1998, Civil Appeal No. 3597 of 1998 and Civil Appeal No. 2113 of 1999, Civil Appeal...
Party Name:1. Tika Ram and Ors., 2. Saroj Agarwal, 3. Shivaji Nagar Sahakari Girah Nirman Samiti Ltd., 4. Pratap Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. , 5. Shama Timber Works and Anr., 6. Ganga Bux Singh and Ors., 7. Janta Steel Industry and Anr., 8. Sachin Surkhi Udyog and Anr., 9. Awadh Industries and Ors., 10. Pragatisheel Sahakari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., 11. Indira Nagar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., 12. Swarg Ashram Sahakari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Counsel:For Appearing Parties: R.N. Trivedi, Rakesh Kr. Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, D.K. Arora, Addl. A.G., Pramod Agarwal, Shweta Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Qamar Ahmad (NP), Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Pathak, N.D. Peter, Irshad Ahmad, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Navin Prakash, Gaurav Aggarwal, B.K. Prasad, Shakil Ahmed Syed, ...
Judges:Tarun Chatterjee and V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Issue:Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act' For Short) - Sections 17(1), 17(1)(A), 17(3)(A), 17(4), 17(4), 3(A), 3(B), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 300A, 14, 245, 246, 19, 21, 39, 48, 48A
Citation:JT 2009 (12) SC 1 , 2009 (12) SCALE 349 , (2009) 10 SCC 689
Judgement Date:September 09, 2009
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

Background of Appeals

  1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998, 3162 of 1998, 3176 of 1998, 3415 of 1998, 3561 of 1998, 3597 of 1998, 3923 of 1998, 3939 of 1998, 3645 of 1998, 3691 of 1998, 5346 of 1998, 2116-2118 of 1999, 2139 of 1999, 2121 of 1999, 2113 of 1999, 4995-4996 of 1998 and SLP(C) No...(CC) 1540 of 1999. All these appeals and the Special Leave Petition challenge a common judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, disposing of several Writ Petitions. The High Court has granted certificate granting leave to file appeal. These Writ Petitions were filed covering various subjects. Basically, in some of the Writ Petitions, constitutionality of provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(1)(A), 17(3)(A), 17(4) and proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act' For Short) Alongwith Section 2 of The U.P. Act No. Viii of 1994 (Hereinafter Called the Validating Act' for short) was challenged, so also constitutionality of Sections 3(A), 3(B), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act was also challenged. In that set of Writ Petitions, basically, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the award dated 25.2.1987 were in challenge.

  2. In some other Writ Petitions, besides the challenge to the above mentioned provisions, some other notifications dated 30.12.1995, 25.1.1992, 4.1.1992 and 15.12.1992 under Section 4(1) of the Act, as well as, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were in challenge.

  3. In some Writ Petitions, the petitioners prayed for a Writ of mandamus, commanding the State of U.P. to frame necessary rules and regulations in respect of Sections 11, 11-A and 17(3)(A) of the Act pertaining to the functioning of the Land Acquisition Officer and also sought for an injunction restraining the authorities from interfering with the possession of the Writ Petitioners' land and to comply with the provisions under Sections 3(1A), 3(B), 4(2), 5 and 9(1) of the Act. They have also prayed for a disciplinary action against the Station Officer, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.

  4. These are the three sets of Writ Petitions, which came to be disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment.

  5. In one of the Writ Petitions, bearing No. 16(L/A) of 1996 filed by one Ram Bharosey, award dated 25.2.1987 which was validated in pursuance of Section 2 of the Validating Act, was in challenge.

  6. In still another set of Writ Petitions, Pratap Housing Cooperative Society and some industries prayed for exempting their land from the land acquisition proceedings. In these Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitioners had contended that they had purchased their land from tenure holders for Cooperative Societies for providing land to their members and construction of the houses. The Writ Petitioners contended that some being industries were manufacturing certain articles and their running business had come to the standstill because of the land acquisition activities.

  7. In one set of Writ Petitions, it was found that notifications were issued under Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, simultaneously with the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In these cases, the possession was taken by Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as LDA' for short), so also the award was passed on 25.2.1987.

  8. In another set of Writ Petitions, wherein the leading Writ Petition was W.P. No. 2220 (L/A) of 1996 filed by Tika Ram and Anr., the notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 17 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act simultaneously. However, they were treated to be lapsed and a fresh notification came to be issued on 30.12.1991 under Section 4(1) and 17 of the Act. Even in these Writ Petitions, the awards were passed and the concerned persons were asked to receive payment of 80% compensation by a general notice. In short, the challenge generally was to the land acquired at the instance of LDA. Besides this challenge to the provisions of the Act, as also to the provisions of the Validating Act, the Writ Petitioners have claimed the non-compliance with the essential provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act. They have also challenged the urgency clause made applicable to the various land acquisitions. On merits, it has been suggested that there has been no proper publication in the newspapers or at the convenient places of the locality as required under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act. There has been no preliminary survey as envisaged under Section 3(A) of the Act and no damages were paid to any tenure holder as provided under Section 3(B) of the Act, either before or after passing of the Validating Act. There are various such challenges on merit to the process of acquisition.

    Short History of Validating Act

  9. Earlier, the acquisitions were made by formulating a scheme known as Ujariyaon Housing Scheme (Part-II and Part III). In these, the notifications under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) of the Act were issued simultaneously. That was challenged before the High Court at the instance of one Kashmira Singh. All the Writ Petitions came to be allowed on the ground that simultaneous notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(2) could not be issued, particularly, after the amendment of Section 17(4) of the Act, which provision was amended by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. State of Uttar Pradesh filed Special Leave Petition before this Court, where the order passed by the High Court was upheld in a reported decision in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam reported in 1989 (1) SCC 591. In these petitions, schemes known as Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-II and Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-III were the subject matter of the dispute. While disposing of the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Radhey Shyam (cited supra), this Court observed:-

    It will, however, be open to the appellants to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6, if so advised, within a period contemplated in the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act read with its first explanation.

    However, instead of doing that, it seems that a Bill was brought before the State Legislature and was passed and the same also received assent of the President of India in February, 1991, which was published in the Gazette on 27.2.1991. There was a prefatory note to the following effect:-

    The Supreme Court in case of its judgment dated January 11, 1989 held that after the commencement of the land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984), the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be made simultaneously with the publication in the Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) even though the application of Section 5-A has been dispensed with under Section 17(4) of the said Act. In a large number of proceedings of acquisition of land for the Development Authorities for the implementation of various housing schemes, the declaration under Section 6 were made simultaneously with publication in the Gazette of notification under Section 4(1). The said proceedings were likely to be held void in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. In order to save the said scheme from being adversely affected, it was decided to amend the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to Uttar Pradesh to provide for validating the proceedings of land acquisition in respect of which the notifications under sub Section (1) of Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act had been published in the Gazette on after September 24, 1984 (the date of amendment) but before January 11, 1989 (the date of judgment of the Supreme Court) and the declaration under Section 6 had been issued either simultaneously or at any time after the application in the Gazette of the said notification under Section 4(1).

    Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the said Validating Act were as under:-

    2. Amendment of Section 17 of Act No. 1 of 1894:-In Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act, in sub-Section (4), the following proviso shall be inserted at the end and shall be deemed to have been inserted on September 24, 1984, namely:-

    Provided that where in the case of any land notification under Section 4, sub-Section (1) has been published in the official Gazette on or after September 24, 1984 but before January 11, 1989 and the appropriate Government has under this sub-Section directed that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, a declaration under Section 6 in respect of the land may be made either simultaneously with or at any time after the publication in the official Gazette of the notification under section 4, sub-Section (1).

    3. Validation of certain acquisitions:-

    Notwithstanding and judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority, no acquisition of land made, or purporting to have been made under the Principal Act, before the commencement of this Act and no action taken or thing done (including any order or alteration made, agreement entered into or notification published in connection with such acquisition which is in conformity with the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall be deemed to be invalid of ever to have been invalid merely on the ground that declaration under Section 6 of the Principal Act was published in the official Gazette on the same date on which notification under Section 4, sub Section (1) of the Principal Act was published in the official Gazette or on any other date prior to the date of publication of such notification as defined in Section 4, sub Section (1) of the Principal Act.

    4. Repeal and saying:-

    (1) The land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) ordinance 1990 (U.P. Ordinance No. 32 of 1990) is hereby repealed.

    (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the provisions of the Principal...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL