Savitri Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
|
Head Note
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 226 , Article 136 , The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 , Section 5-A , Section 17
Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Delay and Laches - A scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal - On the other hand there is a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created - High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively - Held that keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution - However, made clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 , Section 5-A , Section 17 , Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 , Article 226
Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and laches - Appellants were not aggrieved by the acquisition per se in the manner it was done by the respondents - As per their own case, they became aggrieved only when they found that land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired namely industrial development but a large portion thereof was sought to be given away to the builders for development of the land as residential - It is contended by the authorities that merely because the part of the land is utilised for residential purpose, it cannot be said that the respondents- authorities have not adhered to the purpose for which the land is acquired - As per them, this would be complimentary purpose to the main purpose - In all these cases, after the land was acquired, which was of very large quantity and in big chunks, further steps were taken by passing the award, taking possession and paying compensation - In many cases, actual possession was taken and in rest of the cases, paper possession was taken where because of the land under Abadi, actual possession could not be taken on spot immediately - Fact remains that in many such cases where possession was taken, these land owners/appellants even received compensation - All these petitions have been filed only thereafter which may not be maintainable stricto sensu.
Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Delay and Laches - No quashing of acquisition - Benefits granted