2005 JTR(SC) 301
2006 1 ADJ 423 ; 2005 28 AIC 561 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 1952 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 1424 ; 2005 AllLJ 1082 ; 2005 59 AllLR 147 ; 2005 3 ALT(SC) 17 ; 2005 1 AndhWR(SC) 307 ; 2005 2 AWC 1124 ; 2005 10 JT 220 ; 2005 2 MLJ 110 ; 2005 2 RCR(Civ) 131 ; 2005 98 RD 755 ; 2005 2 Scale 405 ; 2005 3 SCC 444 ; 2005 2 Supreme 230
2005(2) Supreme 230
Supreme Court of India
(From Allahabad High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
U.P. Parents Association & Ors. —Appellants
versus
S.K. Bhargava & Ors. etc. etc. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6746 of 1999
With
C.A.No. 6747/1999, C.A.No. 6836/1999
With
Cont.Pet. (Civil) 324/2003 in CA 6747/1999
With
Cont.Pet. (Civil) 483/2003 in CA 6747/1999
Decided on 22-2-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advocate, Sushendra Kumar Chauhan, S.L. Vaish, R.P. Gupta, Manish Misra, T. Mahipal, Prashant Kumar, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Rajiv Kumar Dubey, Mohd. Saied, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.4, S.6, S.48(1)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 6, and Section 48(1) were sequentially engaged in this case, where a notification initiating acquisition for a private school was challenged on procedural and substantive grounds, and the subsequent de-notification under Section 48(1) operated partial withdrawal of the acquisition.
(B) Key principles include that acquisition for a private entity must comply with statutory procedure, a tenant may lack locus to challenge acquisition where ownership rests elsewhere, and de-notification under Section 48(1) can cure defects by releasing specific land from acquisition.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 was issued for land acquisition for a private school, challenged successfully in the High Court on grounds of improper beneficiary and procedural default, but the government invoked Section 48(1) to de-notify a portion, leading to this appellate review.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was partly set aside for the land not de-notified, while the de-notified portion was excluded from review, allowing the acquisition for the remaining land.
Issues:
Whether a tenant can challenge acquisition, whether acquisition for a private school is valid, and whether de-notification under Section 48(1) is effective.
Ratio Decidendi:
Partial allowance of appeals, setting aside the High Courts quashing of acquisition for the land not de-notified, while the de-notified portion stands released, without prejudice to challenges against the de-notification itself.
Result:
Appeals partly allowed, acquisition sustained for the land minus the de-notified 6000 sq.ft., with no orders on contempt.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 6, and Section 48(1) were sequentially engaged in this case, where a notification initiating acquisition for a private school was challenged on procedural and substantive grounds, and the subsequent de-notification under Section 48(1) operated partial withdrawal of the acquisition.
(B) Key principles include that acquisition for a private entity must comply with statutory procedure, a tenant may lack locus to challenge acquisition where ownership rests elsewhere, and de-notification under Section 48(1) can cure defects by releasing specific land from acquisition.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 was issued for land acquisition for a private school, challenged successfully in the High Court on grounds of improper beneficiary and procedural default, but the government invoked Section 48(1) to de-notify a portion, leading to this appellate review.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts order was partly set aside for the land not de-notified, while the de-notified portion was excluded from review, allowing the acquisition for the remaining land.
Issues:
Whether a tenant can challenge acquisition, whether acquisition for a private school is valid, and whether de-notification under Section 48(1) is effective.
Ratio Decidendi:
Partial allowance of appeals, setting aside the High Courts quashing of acquisition for the land not de-notified, while the de-notified portion stands released, without prejudice to challenges against the de-notification itself.
Result:
Appeals partly allowed, acquisition sustained for the land minus the de-notified 6000 sq.ft., with no orders on contempt.
Judgment
B.P. Singh, J.—These three appeals have been preferred by the, the U.P. Parents Association and Ors., State of Uttar Pradesh and by the Management of the City Montessori School, Lucknow impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 26th May, 1998 in Writ Petition No. 112 (MB) of 1980 whereby the acquisition in question relating to land measuring about 23,000 sq.ft. was quashed by the High Court.
2. The facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] was issued by the State Government proposing to acquire the land in question for the benefit of the City Montessori school. The said notification was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Act. The notifications were challenged on the ground that the acquisition should not be made in favour of and for the benefit of a private school, and in any event, the procedure under Chapter VII of the Act ought to be followed. It was stated that the writ petition had been filed by Shri S.K. Bhargava, alleged tenant of a portion of the land in question to circumvent the decree of eviction passed against the school which was the tenant of the entire land. The aforesaid contentions of the respondents herein were upheld by the High Court and the acquisition was quashed. Against the impugned order of the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred.
3. While these appeals were pending in this Court, the Government proposed to act under Section 48 of the Act and to de-notify the land from acquisition. This Court granted time to the State of Uttar Pradesh to do so by its order dated 21st September, 2004, which reads as follows :
“It was stated to us that the State Government was proposing to de-notify the area occupied by the Respondents from out of the total land acquired. Even though decision has been taken, till date the de-notification has not taken place. We grant one final opportunity and adjourn these Appeals for three months to enable the Government to de-notify the area occupied by the Respondents. In the event if it is not de-notified by the next date, the Chief Secretary to remain present in this Court personally.”
Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh has issued notification dated 5th November, 2004 and has sought to de-notify the land in question measuring 6000 sq.ft. in exercise of power conferred under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in 1984.
4. The effect of the aforesaid notification is that 6000 sq.ft. of land which formed part of the land and which was in possession of the respondent S.K. Bhargava, who claimed to be a tenant in respect thereof, stands released from acquisition. So far as the remaining land is concerned, the respondents have no objection to this Court affirming the notifications acquiring the aforesaid land in question and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court to that extent.
5. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that there are good grounds to set aside the judgment of the High Court because the facts of the case disclose that the owner of the land accepted compensation in respect of the land in question and, therefore, respondent S.K. Bhargava had no locus to challenge the acquisition, he being only a tenant claiming a right under the owner of the land. At best he could have claimed apportionment of compensation under the provisions of the Act.
6. It is not necessary for us to go into this contention and other contentions urged in support of the plea that the acquisition was valid, since the respondents concede that acquisition in respect of the acquired land, except land measuring about 6000 sq.ft. which has been released in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of the Act, may be upheld.
7. Accordingly, we partly allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court quashing the acquisition in so far as it relates to the land measuring about 17000 sq.ft. of which possession was taken by the Government, and which does not include that part of the land measuring about 6000 st.ft. which is the subject matter of the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act.
8. We have not expressed any opinion on the validity of the notification issued under Section 48 of the Act and this order will not prevent any interested person from challenging that notification, if so advised.
9. Thus, these appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order in so far as it relates to the lands measuring about 17000 sq.ft., is set aside.
10. No orders on contempt petitions.
Appeal allowed.
****************