Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) against the Allahabad High Court's judgment quashing the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 in village Hariharpur, Lucknow. The Board had issued a notice under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 on 17.07.2004 for the Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna, but Khasra No. 673 was not mentioned in that notice. The respondents claimed to be tenure holders of the land, having been mutated in 1999, but later entries were made in favor of Chandrika and others in 2003-2004. The Board argued that it served notice on the recorded tenure holders (Chandrika et al.) and was not obligated to serve the respondents. The High Court found that the respondents were denied the opportunity to file objections under Section 30 of the Act, which is akin to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and quashed the acquisition. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the public notice did not include Khasra No. 673, and no individual notice was served on the respondents. The Court declined to decide the title dispute but directed that if the Board still requires the land, it must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, ensuring compensation as per that Act. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Pre-acquisition Notice - Mandatory Requirement - Sections 28, 29, 30, 55 of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 - The Board failed to include Khasra No. 673 in the public notice dated 17.07.2004 and did not serve individual notice on the respondents, who claimed to be tenure holders. The High Court quashed the acquisition, and the Supreme Court upheld, holding that the denial of opportunity to object vitiates the acquisition process. (Paras 2-17) B) Land Acquisition - Right to Object - Analogous to Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The opportunity to file objections under Section 30 of the 1965 Act is a valuable right, and non-observance thereof renders the acquisition unsustainable. (Para 14) C) Land Acquisition - Title Dispute - Not Decided - The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the title dispute between the respondents and Chandrika, leaving it open for determination in appropriate proceedings. (Para 17) D) Land Acquisition - Future Course - Compensation under 2013 Act - The Court directed the Board to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if it still requires the land, ensuring payment of compensation as per the 2013 Act. (Paras 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 is vitiated due to non-compliance with the notice requirements under Sections 28 and 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment quashing the acquisition of Khasra No. 673. The Court directed that if the Board still requires the land, it must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, ensuring payment of compensation as per that Act. The title dispute between the respondents and Chandrika was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Pre-acquisition notice under Section 29 of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam
- 1965 is mandatory
- non-compliance vitiates acquisition
- right to object akin to Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- public notice must include all affected khasra numbers
