2015 (5) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian Laws

Dominant 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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act
2. Necessity of Land Acquisition by the Authority
3. Delay and Laches
4. Compliance with National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985
5. Invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act
6. Pre-notification and Post-notification Delay
7. Allegations of Mala Fide and Colourable Exercise of Power
8. Legality of Possession Taken Under Section 17(1)
9. Vesting of Land in the State
10. Lapse of Acquisition Under Section 11A
11. Non-payment of 80% Compensation Under Section 17(3A)
12. Waiver of Rights by Accepting Compensation
13. Acquiescence by Accepting Compensation
14. Impact of Third Party Rights and Developments
15. Effect of Previous Judgments Upholding Notifications
16. Conflicting Views of Division Benches
17. Relief Entitlement

Detailed Analysis:

1. Object and Purpose of the 1976 Act:
The High Court concluded that the primary objective of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 was not limited to industrial development but included residential and other purposes. The Authority's misconception that land must be acquired for development was criticized.

2. Necessity of Land Acquisition by the Authority:
The High Court noted that the Authority wrongly believed that land acquisition was compulsory for development under the 1976 Act, leading to excessive acquisition of fertile agricultural land.

3. Delay and Laches:
The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed with inordinate delay and laches, specifically those challenging notifications issued before 2000. However, it entertained petitions where landowners challenged the change in land use from industrial to residential, considering this a valid reason for delay.

4. Compliance with National Capital Regional Planning Board Act, 1985:
The High Court found that land could not be acquired without the Board's permission. However, it was noted that the necessary consent had been obtained in these cases, leaving the legal question open.

5. Invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act:
The High Court held that the invocation of urgency provisions under Sections 17(1) and 17(4), thereby dispensing with the right to file objections under Section 5A, was illegal and unwarranted.

6. Pre-notification and Post-notification Delay:
The High Court found that delays before and after the issuance of notification did not justify invoking urgency provisions.

7. Allegations of Mala Fide and Colourable Exercise of Power:
The High Court agreed with the landowners that the acquisition was arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power, as the land was later allotted to private builders for residential purposes.

8. Legality of Possession Taken Under Section 17(1):
The High Court found that possession taken under Section 17(1) was not in accordance with the law.

9. Vesting of Land in the State:
The High Court noted that once possession is taken under Section 17(1), the land vests in the State, and the challenge to the notifications cannot be entertained.

10. Lapse of Acquisition Under Section 11A:
The High Court did not find the acquisition to have lapsed under Section 11A, as the declaration of the award was within the stipulated time.

11. Non-payment of 80% Compensation Under Section 17(3A):
The High Court noted that non-payment of 80% compensation as required by Section 17(3A) was fatal to the acquisition proceedings.

12. Waiver of Rights by Accepting Compensation:
The High Court held that accepting compensation did not amount to waiving the right to challenge the acquisition.

13. Acquiescence by Accepting Compensation:
The High Court found that accepting compensation did not equate to acquiescence, and landowners could still challenge the acquisition.

14. Impact of Third Party Rights and Developments:
The High Court balanced equities by not quashing acquisitions where substantial development and third-party rights had been created, instead enhancing compensation and allotting developed land.

15. Effect of Previous Judgments Upholding Notifications:
The High Court acknowledged the impact of previous judgments but chose to provide relief based on the specific facts of the case.

16. Conflicting Views of Division Benches:
The High Court resolved conflicting views by referring the matter to a larger bench, which ultimately found the invocation of urgency provisions unjustified.

17. Relief Entitlement:
The High Court categorized relief into three compartments: dismissing delayed petitions, quashing notifications for undeveloped villages, and enhancing compensation and land allotment for others.

Supreme Court's Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, noting that the High Court's approach balanced equities and provided substantial justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the directions given by the High Court were unique to the specific circumstances and should not be treated as a precedent. Appeals were disposed of in terms of the High Court's judgment, and the contempt petitions were also disposed of.