2016 (6) TMI 1483 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement for higher compensation and allotment of land instead of quashing of acquisition proceedings - applicability of decision in SAVITRI DEVI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 2015 (5) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT . Entitlement for higher compensation and allotment of land instead of quashing of acquisition proceedings - HELD THAT - The compensation had already been disbursed to the extent of 76 per cent. Thereafter for the entire land of village Chhapraula falling in Group No. 18 the relief granted is payment of additional compensation and allotment of land. As already noted the part of the order where relief of quashing of notification has been given is not of the category of the present case. In these circumstances there are merit in the contention raised on the behalf of the Appellant that the division bench was in error in distinguishing the present case from the judgment in GAJRAJ AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 2011 (10) TMI 753 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Applicability of decision in SAVITRI DEVI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS - HELD THAT - As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi in spite of the finding that invocation of urgency Clause was uncalled for the relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land. However to balance the equities higher compensation and allotment of land was ordered to meet the ends of justice. The allotment of 10% of the acquired land to the concerned land owners is subject to maximum of 2500 sq. meters - the impugned judgment set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of urgency clause u/s 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Justification for quashing the acquisition notifications.
3. Reliefs to be granted to the landowners.

Summary:

1. Invocation of urgency clause u/s 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The High Court set aside the notification dated 12th March, 2008 u/s 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the notification dated 3rd February, 2009 u/s 6 read with 17(1) of the Act. The High Court held that the power of dispensing inquiry u/s 5A could be exercised only in exceptional situations and not without real urgency. The urgency clause was invoked to deprive landowners of their right to file objections, which was not justified in this case.

2. Justification for quashing the acquisition notifications:
The Division Bench of the High Court distinguished the present case from the Full Bench judgment in Gajraj and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., where the acquisition was upheld but additional compensation and allotment of developed plots were awarded. The High Court noted that the writ petition in Gajraj was filed with a delay of two years, whereas in the present case, the petitioners approached the Court without any delay. However, the Supreme Court found merit in the contention that the Division Bench was in error in distinguishing the present case from the judgment in Gajraj, as the relief of quashing the acquisition was not granted in Gajraj due to substantial development on the land.

3. Reliefs to be granted to the landowners:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents are entitled to be treated at par with other similarly placed persons. They are entitled to the following reliefs as per the judgment in Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
- Increasing the compensation by 64.7%.
- Directing allotment of developed abadi land to the extent of 10% of the land acquired of each landowner, subject to a maximum of 2500 square meters.
- The increased compensation is payable immediately without taking away the rights of the landowners to claim higher compensation under the machinery provided in the Land Acquisition Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and directed the disposal of the writ petitions of the respondents in terms of the judgment in Savitri Devi. There was no order as to costs.