The case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Chandrika & Ors. involves a dispute over the acquisition of Khasra No.673 in Lucknow. The High Court quashed the acquisition due to non-compliance with statutory procedures, raising questions about tenure holders and fraudulent alterations in land records. Stay updated on this crucial legal battle.
Facts
- The appellant, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board), is appealing against a Division Bench judgment dated 07.10.2015.
- The notice for land acquisition within the Scheme clearly described the lands and properties affected, along with a map of the area.
- Details of the Scheme and the land proposed for acquisition were made available in the Office of the Housing Commissioner.
- Objections to the Scheme were to be received by the Office of the Housing Commissioner (Land Acquisition Section) within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification.
- Leave has been granted to proceed with the appeal.
- The judgment pertains to the establishment, incorporation, and functioning of a Housing and Development Board in Uttar Pradesh.
- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench quashed acquisition of Khasra No.673 in village Hariharpur, Lucknow.
- The acquisition was quashed because the tenure holders were not given the opportunity to submit objections as required by Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (1965 Act).
- 1965 Act was enacted by the State legislature through Act No.12 of 1966 and re-enacted by U.P. Act No.30 of 1974.
Also Read: KNNL vs. Land Owners: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute
Analysis
- Section 28 of the 1965 Act requires the Board to prepare a notice outlining the boundaries, land to be acquired, and invite objections for any Housing or Improvement Scheme framed.
- The notice must be published in the Gazette and two daily newspapers for three weeks, with at least one being a Hindi newspaper.
- Section 29 of the Act mandates the Board to serve notices to execute the Scheme to relevant parties.
- Section 30 allows persons served notice to raise objections in writing against the Scheme or proposed actions.
- Upon considering objections and obtaining state government sanction, the Scheme is notified under Section 32 and comes into force.
- Section 55 grants the power to acquire land for Scheme implementation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with specified modifications.
- The appellant-Board issued a notice on 17.07.2004 for the Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna at Lucknow.
- The High Court pointed out discrepancies in the entries of Chandrika’s name in multiple khatas, indicating potential fraudulent practices in land records.
- The High Court emphasized the importance of proper notice and hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- The acquisition process for Khasra No. 673 was found to be vitiated due to non-compliance with prescribed procedures.
- The change in tenure holding/ownership to Chandrika and others was questioned for alleged fraudulent alterations in revenue records.
- The Board’s contention that no notice was required to be served on the respondents due to their status as per revenue records was disputed by the respondents.
- The true tenure holders of the subject land were not conclusively determined, and a thorough inquiry was deemed necessary.
- Compensation for the acquired land must be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act since the 1894 Act has been repealed.
- The Acquiring Authority/Board is obligated to pay compensation to the ex-propriated owners as per Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
- Tenture-holders/owners of Khasra No.673, still under acquisition when the 2013 Act came into force, are entitled to compensation under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
- Social Impact Assessment Study is mandated in certain situations as prescribed under Chapter-II of the 2013 Act.
Also Read: Interference with Acquittal Orders: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Objections to be filed within four weeks, with the Collector obligated to pass an award by 30.06.2024.
- Maintain status quo on the land until the award is passed.
- The study mentioned may delay compensation to true tenure-holders/owners of Khasra No.673.
- The awarded amount to be kept in a nationalized bank FDR for maximum interest.
- Dispense with the procedure under Chapter II of the 2013 Act.
- Renew FDR until title dispute is resolved by a competent court.
- Appellant-Board can utilize the land for notified Scheme or public purpose upon award and deposit of compensation.
- Prescribed Authority/Collector to give notice and opportunity for objections under 2013 Act.
- Release compensation to entitled parties within four weeks after final adjudication of title dispute.
Also Read: Analysis of Suppression of Information in Employment Selection: Legal Perspective
Case Title: U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS (2024 INSC 210)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003855-003855 / 2024
