The Supreme Court of India ruled on a crucial case concerning the land acquisition for the establishment of the ITBP Battalion Headquarters in Kanpur Nagar. The judgement addresses key aspects such as the invocation of the urgency clause and the compensation awarded to the landowners. This landmark decision will have far-reaching implications on future land acquisition cases involving public interest projects.
Facts
- The request for providing about 75 acres of land for establishing one Battalion Headquarter of ITBP at Kanpur Nagar was made to the Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Director, Police Finance, ITBP.
- The State Government acquired the land in December 2010 for a compensation amount of Rs.6,33,09,176.41 inclusive of solatium.
- Writ petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court opposing the acquisition on grounds of urgency clause and invoking Section 5A of the Act.
- Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.9.2009 for urgent acquisition of the land for the ITBP headquarter.
- A writ petition challenging the Section 4 notification was filed but dismissed as premature on 3.11.2009.
- Notification under Section 6 of the Act invoking the urgency clause and Section 17 was issued on 11.12.2009 for the Collector to take possession of the land.
- The decision to establish the Battalion headquarter of ITBP at Kanpur Nagar was due to increasing Counter Insurgency Operations, Law and order duties, VVIP security duties, and Disaster Management Operations.
- The High Court found no immediate urgency or facts to invoke Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act.
- Notifications under Section 4 & 6 were deemed bad by the High Court.
- Investment of public money into the development of the acquired land was noted.
- Citing the Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh case, the High Court held the notifications under Section 4 & 6 as bad.
- The High Court directed payment of compensation under the 2013 Act to landowners based on the date of the High Court’s order as the acquisition date.
- The acquiring body was instructed not to return possession of the land.
Also Read: Address Update Requirement: Legal Implications for Corporate Entities
Arguments
- The High Court did not properly appreciate the time taken from the proposal until the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
- The land was urgently required for the establishment of the Battalion headquarters of ITBP due to various operational needs.
- There was no delay in invoking the urgency clause for the land acquisition process.
- Development has already taken place on 95% of the acquired land, with significant public expenditure.
- The High Court’s finding on the urgency clause being unjustified was contrary to the material on record.
- The urgency clause was not explained or justified by the State Government, leading to the High Court’s observation of no substantive urgency.
- Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is considered a valuable statutory right for landowners unless compelling circumstances warrant invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Act.
- The delay between notifications under Sections 4 & 6 was only three months, indicating urgency in the matter.
- The land owners have not received any compensation for the acquired land till date, indicating non-compliance with Section 17(4) of the Act.
- The High Court, in its judgment, attempted to balance the situation by not ordering the return of the land but directing payment of compensation as per the 2013 Act provisions.
- The compensation is to be determined based on the date of the order, considering it as the date of acquisition notification (22.12.2016).
Also Read: Army Discharge Case: Upholding Justice for Long Service Rendered
Analysis
- The High Court erred in holding the invocation of the urgency clause as bad.
- There was a real urgency for acquiring the land for establishing ITBP Battalion headquarters.
- Chronological dates and events show a time gap of only three months between notifications under Section 4 and Section 6.
- ITBP had deposited 10%, 70%, and 20% of the estimated compensation prior to acquisition.
- Original writ petitioners did not come to take the compensation when notified.
- Other landowners did not challenge the acquisition of a large chunk of land, except for the original writ petitioners.
- Time is naturally consumed between proposal and issuance of Section 4 notification.
- The High Court was not justified in setting aside the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act.
- The observation that the invocation of Section 17 of the Act and urgency clause was bad is unwarranted.
- The ITBP had deposited the estimated amount of compensation in 2009/2010.
- Land owners/tenure holders were served notice to withdraw or take 80% of the estimated compensation amount.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgement on Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981
Decision
- Final award for compensation amounting to Rs. 63309176.41, inclusive of solatium, was published in 2010 before the writ petition was filed.
- The compensation awarded was not accepted by the parties.
- The writ petition filed by the concerned parties before the High Court was dismissed.
- The impugned judgment and order of the High Court has been quashed and set aside.
- The present appeal has been allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHIUDDIN MASOOD
Case Number: C.A. No.-006419-006419 / 2019
