Civil Appeal Nos. 8791-8818 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 36425-36452 of 2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 8819-8831 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 36616-36628 of 2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 832-8833 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 171-172 of 2010), Civil Appeal No. 8834 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1937 of 2010).... Case: Reliance Power Ltd. Vs Babu Singh. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 8791-8818 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 36425-36452 of 2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 8819-8831 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 36616-36628 of 2009), Civil Appeal Nos. 832-8833 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 171-172 of 2010), Civil Appeal No. 8834 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1937 of 2010)... |
| Counsel | For Appellant: E.C. Agrawala, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Rishi Malhotra, Ashok K. Mahajan and Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advs. and For Respondents: A.V. Balan, V.S. Lakshmi, Surat Singh, Ashok Mahajan, Anil Kumar Tandale, Rishi Malhotra, Anuvrat Sharma, Aftab Ali Khan, Ravi Kumar Tomar and Abinash Kumar Mishra, Advs. |
| Judges | T.S. Thakur, C. Nagappan and A.K. Goel, JJ. |
| Issue | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, 6, 17(1), 17(4) |
| Judgement Date | September 16, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
A.K. Goel, J.
1. Leave granted. The interlocutory applications are allowed.
2. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short 'the Act']. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the two notifications Dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007 Under Section 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications Under Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause with liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of objections Under Section 5A of the Act and with further direction as to refund of compensation already received by the land owners. The operative part of the order is as follows:
1. The notification dated 11th February, 2004 Under Section 4 of the Act is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and mentions the acquisition as an acquisition for "public purpose". All subsequent proceedings consequent to the notification dated 11th February, 2004 including the notification Under Section 6 dated 25th June, 2004 are quashed.
2. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry Under Section 5A in continuation of the notification dated 11th February, 2004 and proceed with the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The notice be issued by the Collector inviting objection Under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days period for filing objection.
3. The notification Under Section 4 dated 29th August, 2006 is partly quashed insofar as it invokes Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. All subsequent proceedings consequent to the notification dated 29th August, 2006 including the notification Under Section 6 dated 20th February, 2007 are quashed.
4. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry Under Section 5A in continuation of the notification dated 29th August, 2006 and proceed with the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The notice be issued by the Collector inviting objection Under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days period for filing objection.
5. As a result of quashing of the notification dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007, the Petitioners are liable to refund the compensation received from the Respondents. However, we provide that it shall be open for those tenure...
To continue reading
Request your trial