Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian LawsDominant purpose and object of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - development of industries - compulsory to acquire the land by the Authority or not - delay and laches in the facts of the present case - bar on invocation or Constitutional remedy Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act - delay caused before issuance of notification Under Section 4 and delay caused subsequent to notification - acquisition of land are vitiated due to mala fide and colourable exercise of powers - non-declaration of the award within two years from the date of publication of the declaration made Under Section 6 - non payment of 80% of the compensation as required by Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act - waiver of right to challenge the acquisition proceedings - estoppel from challenging the acquisition proceedings at this stage - creation of third party rights, development carried out by the Authority and developments and constructions made by the allottees on the acquired land subsequent to the acquisition. HELD THAT:- It is clear that the Appellants did not challenge the acquisition per se inasmuch as when the land was acquired even after invoking urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act, this position was accepted by the land owners. They even allowed the authorities to proceed further in passing the award and taking possession from many of these land owners and even paying compensation to them. It is a matter of record that before coming to the Court and filing the writ petitions, most of these Appellants had received the compensation. They also sought reference Under Section 18 of the Act for higher compensation. Physical possession of land of many of these Appellants have also been taken. In many other cases, paper possession had been taken before filing of the writ petition. A great deal of argument was made as to whether such physical possession/paper possession should be treated as taking possession in the eyes of law, it would be a debatable point inasmuch as in various judgments, this Court has held that whenever there is large scale of acquisition and possession of large chunk of land belonging to number of persons is to be taken, paper possession would be a permissible mode, particularly when it is Abadi land. It is mentioned that abadi area is what was found in the survey conducted prior to Section 4 Notification and not what is alleged or that which is far away from the dense village abadi. It is also mentioned that as a consequence of the acquisition, the Authority spends crores and crores of rupees in developing the infrastructure such as road, drainage, sewer, electric and water lines etc. in the unacquired portion of the village abadi - it is difficult to accept the argument of the Appellants based on parity with three villages in respect of which the High Court has given relief by quashing the acquisition. Following benefits are accorded to the land owners: (a) increasing the compensation by 64.7%; (b) directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners; (c) compensation which is increased at the rate of 64.7% is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the land owners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act wherein the matter would be examined on the basis of the evidence produced to arrive at just and fair market value. These are not the cases where this Court should interfere Under Article 136 of the Constitution.
|