Explore a legal case delving into the complexities of land acquisition, withdrawal, and compensation disputes. The court’s thorough examination of procedural compliance, principles of natural justice, and the need for fair hearings sheds light on the intricacies of such legal matters. Read on for a detailed analysis of the case’s legal nuances and the implications of the court’s decisions.
Facts
- The appellant challenged the orders dated 31.08.2010 and 20.12.2016.
- The original respondent-Ram Singh claimed compensation for the land in question on 19.11.1985, stating he was the son of the Original Tenure Holder and had not executed any sale deed for the land.
- There was litigation against subsequent purchasers (Dr. Raj Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors.) mentioned.
- The Notification issued on 07.07.2005 attempted to exempt Khasra No 3 and 7 from acquisition.
- The appellant pointed out that the land had already been acquired, an Award was passed, and possession taken, in a representation on 24.10.2005.
- Possession of the land was claimed to have been taken on 11.12.1981 and 31.03.1983.
- Respondent-Ram Singh filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 49944 of 2008.
- The Government later cancelled the Notification dated 07.07.2005 and directed the matter for reconsideration by the concerned department.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Assignment and Ratification in Property Law
Arguments
- Appellant’s counsel argues that the impugned order merely withdrew a previous order and referred the matter back to the competent authority for a decision on withdrawing from the acquisition.
- The counsel challenges the High Court’s interference in the matter through writ petitions filed by Ram Singh and subsequent purchasers.
- The case involves disputes related to land acquisition and compensation, with amounts duly deposited.
- The appellant’s counsel presents arguments based on the legal process followed in land acquisition, including notifications, declarations, and award issuance.
- Withdrawal from the acquisition is contested by the appellant, emphasizing the due process followed and compensation deposited.
- Respondent’s counsel opposes the appeals, disputing the appellant’s premise and highlighting the necessity of actual possession for withdrawal to apply.
- The respondent’s counsel addresses the opportunity for representation provided to the appellant before certain notifications were issued.
- The importance of interpreting government orders based on their express terms rather than external representations is emphasized.
- The disputed lands play a crucial role in a housing scheme for the Low-Income Group.
- Reliance is placed on the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill vs CEC reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405.
- The appellant did not challenge the Notification dated 07.07.2005.
- No interference is called for based on the above points.
Also Read: Interpretation of Custody in Contempt of Court Case
Analysis
- The order dated 15.09.2006 emphasized the immediate taking of possession of land acquired under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- The order called for the Acquisition Bodies to promptly take possession where Section 17 was applied.
- The law requires individual notices to landowners under Section 9(3) to validate the acquisition process.
- The withdrawal from acquisition must be preceded by offering the affected party an opportunity to be heard.
- The order dated 25.04.2008 has no legal foundation due to lack of proper notice and possession not being taken.
- The power to withdraw from acquisition under Section 48 must be exercised fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.
- The failure to promptly take possession and compensate landowners renders Section 17 ineffective.
- The Administrative Department must properly consider all relevant factors before withdrawing from acquisition.
- Fulfilling principles of natural justice and offering a fair hearing is crucial when exercising power under Section 48.
- The order based on the invalid notification dated 25.04.2008 was rightfully set aside.
- Government has the option to withdraw from land acquisition if necessary
- If withdrawal occurs, compensation for damages must be determined and paid to the owner
- Objections to the acquisition can be made in writing to the collector
- Objections are heard, and a report is made to the State Government for a final decision
- Consent of the State Government is required in the case of a company acquiring land
- Compliance with specific sections and rules is mandatory in the acquisition process
- A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Government decides to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act for any land where possession has not been taken.
- The owner does not need to be given notice of the intention of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition, and the State Government has the liberty to do so.
- The rights of the owner are protected by sub-section (2) of Section 48, and if the owner suffers any damage due to the acquisition proceedings, compensation is to be provided as per sub-section (3) of Section 48.
- The reasoning for these provisions has been extensively discussed in the judgment of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Others, 1998 (4) SCC 387.
- In 2001 (1) SCC 610, the court reaffirmed the need to give an opportunity of being heard to the beneficiary before exercising power under Section 48.
- The appellant sought to make good an omission by arguing a violation of natural justice.
- The court found that the appellant did not present enough evidence to support interference with the impugned orders.
- As a result, the appeals were dismissed.
Also Read: NGT Jurisdiction and High Courts’ Role
Decision
- The appellant will be able to acquire the lands in accordance with the law.
- Parties will bear their respective costs.
Case Title: U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER Vs. (RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS.) OM PRAKASH (2022 INSC 448)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003023-003024 / 2022
