This legal case delves into the intricate analysis provided by the court regarding the withdrawal from land acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The primary focus lies on the court’s interpretation of the quasi-judicial nature of the functions involved, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to legal provisions. Let’s explore the insights offered by the court in this complex legal scenario.
Facts
- The landowners made misleading and false representations to seek the release of their land from acquisition.
- The government issued a Notification under Section 48(1) based on religious sentiments about cemeteries and Mazaars of the forefathers on the land.
- The High Court set aside the second Notification dated 15.09.2005, stating that land vested in the original owner after Notification under Section 48(1) issuance, requiring fresh acquisition process for retrieval.
- The Government invoked the emergency clause and dispensed with an enquiry before the declaration of land release from acquisition.
- The Housing and Development Authority appealed the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the necessity of a new acquisition process for the government to reclaim the land.
Also Read: Interpretation of Amendments in Compassionate Appointment Cases
Arguments
- The decision in Mutha Associates vs. State of Maharashtra is considered a double-edged weapon for the respondents.
- The decision in Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation vs. CIT arose from a quasi-judicial order under the Income Tax Act.
- The H.C. Suman case established that a substantial right created in law cannot be rescinded by a subsequent order under the General Clauses Act.
- Section 21 of the General Clauses Act does not give the government overarching power to rescind a notification conferring vested rights in immovable property.
- The right to property, as a constitutional and human right, cannot be taken away using Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
- The power under Section 21 must be understood in the context of the relevant statute and cannot be used once an enforceable right has accrued.
- Section 21 does not apply to vary, amend, or review a quasi-judicial order.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Settlement Claims in Money Suit
Analysis
- Functions exercisable by CIT under section 12-A are quasi-judicial in nature, not legislative or executive.
- Order under section 12-A of the Income Tax Act is not in the category of orders mentioned in Section 21 like Notification/Rules/bye-laws.
- Proceeding under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature.
- Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act allows the Government to withdraw from the acquisition if possession has not been taken.
- Court in H.C. Suman decision held that a vested right created by a quasi-judicial order cannot be taken away by general rescindment power.
- Notification for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act takes away an individual’s right to property.
- Notification under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act confers benefit upon an individual and is not preceded by any inquiry.
- Section 48(1) of the Act provides the power or liberty to withdraw from acquisition.
- The provision of Part III of the Act applies to the determination of compensation under this section.
- The determination of compensation under this section shall follow the provisions of Part III of the Act.
- The decision in Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (supra) is not relevant to this case.
- The decision in H.C. Suman is also not applicable as it involved a different scenario.
- The first notification under Section 48(1) was obtained by the respondents through false representations and fraud.
- The land was later sold to third parties contradicting the original claims made by the respondents.
- An enquiry revealed that the land had been taken over by a land mafia.
- Any grievance regarding the notification under Section 48(1) would be from the beneficiary of the acquisition, not the land owners.
- An order obtained through fraud and misrepresentation does not confer a vested right.
- A notification under Section 48(1) does not require a notice or opportunity of hearing to the original land owners.
- The quasi-judicial order created a vested right given effect through a notification.
- Therefore, a Notification under Section 48(1) is not considered a quasi-judicial order.
- Publication of Notification under Section 48 is necessary, similar to Sections 4 and 6 being mandatory.
- Beneficiary must be heard before withdrawal of land from acquisition.
- Notification dated 7.04.2003 did not provide an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiary, UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
- Withdrawal of the illegal notification, obtained through fraud, is justified.
- For withdrawal under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the beneficiary must be given an opportunity to be heard.
Also Read: Analysis of Possession and Ownership Rights
Decision
- Respondents’ contentions rejected, appeals allowed
- No order as to costs
- Appellant Parishad can proceed with implementing public purpose
- Impugned orders of High Court set aside
- Writ petitions filed by respondents dismissed
Case Title: U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER Vs. NOOR MOHAMMAD (2021 INSC 901)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008083-008083 / 2011
