2011 (4) TMI 1553 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vesting of acquired land in the State Government u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Non-consideration of objections by the landowners.
3. Violation of the provisions of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 and Regional Plan 2001.

Summary:

1. Vesting of Acquired Land in the State Government u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Supreme Court examined whether the acquired land can be treated to have vested in the State Government u/s 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, upon the making of an award by the Collector, even if the actual and physical possession continues with the landowner. The Court emphasized that vesting of the acquired land in the Government takes place only upon actual taking of possession by the Collector after passing an award u/s 11. The Court referred to various judgments, including Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab, and Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal, to elucidate that actual possession must be taken, and symbolic possession or possession merely on paper is insufficient. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in deeming the land vested in the State Government without evidence of actual possession being taken.

2. Non-consideration of Objections by the Landowners:
The landowners filed objections u/s 5A(1) of the Act, arguing that their land, developed for agricultural activities, should not be acquired. They claimed that the acquisition proceedings lacked justification and were initiated without application of mind. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions without addressing these objections, leading the Supreme Court to remand the case for reconsideration.

3. Violation of the Provisions of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 and Regional Plan 2001:
The landowners contended that the acquisition violated the 1985 Act and Regional Plan 2001, which designated the land as part of the Green Belt/Green Wedge, unsuitable for residential, commercial, and institutional purposes. The High Court did not address this issue, prompting the Supreme Court to remand the case for a detailed examination of this contention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on merits, emphasizing the need to address the objections and legal provisions raised by the appellants. The parties were left to bear their own costs.