Kaloo Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—This bunch of writ petitions listed today is being disposed of by a common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is challenging the impugned notification u/s 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. That notification states that the land in question is being acquired for Planned Industrial Development for Greater NOIDA.

In a series of the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court it has been held that acquisition for planned industrial development is for a public purpose vide Ajay Krishan Shinghal, etc. etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, In the notification it is mentioned that as there is urgency, hence Section 5A is being dispensed with. In view of this recital this Court cannot interfere vide Bal Krishan Gulati v. State of U.P. and Ors.. 1991 AWC 1210 ; Garg Farms and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1989 AWC 1137. In Kunwar Lal and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1989 (1) UPLBEC 772 and in Ram Narain Rai v. State of U.P. 1991 AWC 341, it has been held that dispensation of inquiry u/s 5A depends on the subjective satisfaction of the State Government and hence the Court cannot interfere. It has also been held therein that where the declaration has been made by the State Government u/s 6(3) that a particular land is needed for a public purpose, the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that it is so needed.

In Baijnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2002, decided on 19.10.2002 these decisions have been followed.

In Amar Singh and Ors. v. State, Writ Petition No. 29031 of 2003. decided on 11.7.2003, the Court has held that even abadi land can be acquired. The same view was taken in Manveer Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Horam Singh v. State of U. P., in Writ Petition No. 24670 of 2003. decided on 2.7.2003.

In Kashi Nath v. State of U. P. 1993 ALJ 154, a Division Bench of this Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Malimabu v. State of Gujarat. AIR 1978 SC 515, held that the word ''land'' in Section 3(a) includes the superstructures on the land. Hence abadi land can be acquired, even if there are structures thereon, though, of course compensation has to be paid for the same.

In Amar Singh''s case (supra), it has also been held after a detailed discussion that whether to grant exemption from acquisition or not is a purely administrative matter and this Court could not interfere. It was also held therein that directions directing disposal of petitioner''s application for exemption should not be issued by the Court as this only results in further delay of the acquisition proceedings for years and years.

In Ram Charittar and Ors. v. State of U. P., W. P. No. 15586 of 2001. decided on 4.10.2002. a similar view was taken.

In Raghubans Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others, it was held that where inquiry u/s 5A has been dispensed with the requirement of local publication does not apply in view of U.P. Amendment No. 8 of 1974.

In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Jan Kaluan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad and another, it has been held that where Section 17(4) is invoked publication of the notification in local newspapers ts not necessary, in view of the U. P. Amendment to the Land Acquisition Act.

In some of these petitions it has been alleged that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 11A. However, in our opinion, since Section 17 has been invoked and it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that possession has been taken, there is no merit in the submission in view of the Division Bench decision in Mahendra Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, After execution of the possession memo possession of the tenure holder or anyone else is that of unauthorised occupants, vide Awadh Bihari and Other Vs. State of Bihar and others, Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab and others, etc. The" acquisition proceedings will not lapse u/s 11A in this situation, vide Patharoo and Others Vs. U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others,

In Daya Shankar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, it was held that notification u/s 6(3) is conclusive evidence that the land was needed for public purposes.

In First Land Acquisition Collector and Others Vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and Another, the Supreme Court held that existence of urgency is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government. Mere delay on the part of the Government subsequent to its decision to dispense with inquiry u/s 5A by exercising power u/s 17 would not invalidate the decision itself.

In Awadh Bihari and Other Vs. State of Bihar and others, the Supreme Court held that in case the Government has taken possession of the land in question u/s 17 of the Act it is not open to the Government to withdraw from the acquisition by issuing notification u/s 48. In such a case Section 11A of the Act is not attracted and the acquisition proceeding would not lapse even if no award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11A.

In Satendra Prasad Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Supreme Court observed that when Section 17(1) is applied by invoking the urgency clause, the Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award u/s 11, and thereupon the owner is divested of the land, which is vested in the Government. Hence Section 11A has no application to cases of acquisition u/s 17 because the land has already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the Act by which the land vested in the Government can be reverted to the owner, vide Ram Gopal Varshney and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

In view of the above, we find no merit in these petitions.

The writ petitions are dismissed and the interim orders, if any, stand vacated.