HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No.32
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22755 of 2015
Sukhvinder Singh alias Sukhmander Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
***
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.
(Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs :-
(i) to issue, writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay additional compensation and to allot the land as is being done for the villagers of village Kasana, Tehsil Secundarabad, District Gautambudh Nagar whose land was acquired through notification dated 28.11.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to give all the benefits of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2010 (As amended) of the Government and to give benefits of the letter dated 2.6.2011 (Annexure no.9) to the petition.
(iii) And/or to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 21.3.2015 (Annexure 7) within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) to award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioners land situate at village Kasna, Tehsil Sekandarabad, District Bulandshahr, now District Gautam Budh Nagar, was acquired by UPSIDC for industrial development upon issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.7.1987. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 26.9.1987. The possession of the land was taken by the authorities on 20.1.1988 and an award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26.9.1989. The petitioner filed a reference under Section 18 questioning the award. The Additional District Judge decided the same by an award dated 12.12.2003 enhancing the compensation. UPSIDC, being aggrieved, filed a First Appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed by judgment dated 30.3.2006. The said order has become final as no further appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
The petitioner contends that the State of Uttar Pradesh framed the U.P. Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Determination of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1997") and that the State Government has also issued the Rehabilitation And Resettlement Policy, 2010 and that, on the basis of the aforesaid Rules of 1997 read with the judgment of the Full Bench in Gajraj and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011(11)ADJ(1), the petitioner is entitled for the additional compensation. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation to the authority which is pending consideration. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we find that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this belated stage.
The Rules of 1997 stipulates that the Department for which the land was being acquired may at any stage of the proceeding settle down the terms and conditions and rate under the acquisition with the land owner and, on that basis, appear before the Collector and make an application indicating the terms and conditions so settled and their readiness and willingness for determination of compensation and declaration of award in accordance the agreement. The Rules of 1997, therefore, requires that where an award under the Land Acquisition has not been made under Section 11, it would be open to the acquiring body to negotiate and enter into a settlement with the land owners with regard to the rates and if such agreement is arrived at, the parties will appear before the Collector, who upon being satisfied will make an award in terms of the agreement.
The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy framed by the Government contemplates two options available to the land owners and one of them is, that the compensation would be determined in the light of the Rules of 1997.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Rules of 1997 or the Rehabilitation Policy of 2010 are not applicable retrospectively to land acquisition which was acquired and settled and matter has finally come to an end.
In the instant case, the award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.9.1989. The Rules came in 1997 which is only prospective in nature and would only be applicable where no award was made under the Land Acquisition Act. The Rehabilitation Policy of 2010 again is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The Full Bench of Gajraj and others is also not applicable. In the said decision the Full Bench had also not entertained the petitions where there were laches. The Full Bench held-
"We, however, cannot loose sight of the fact that the above grounds taken are not applicable to those writ petitioners, where the acquisition was finalised decades ago and allotment of private builders and colonisers which were complained of were not applicable in the aforesaid cases. We, now proceed to refer to cases in which there are inordinate delay and the aforesaid ground pleaded are not applicable to them. These petitions with inordinate delay relate to Noida. There are two writ petitions of Village Nithari namely; Writ Petition No.45933/2011, Ravindra Sharma & Anr Vs. State of U.P. & ors, 47545/2011, Babu Ram & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. These two writ petitions have been filed in the year 2011, where as the notification under Section 4 was issued on 01/6/1976 and declaration under Section 6 was issued on 16/9/1976. The possession was taken by the respondents on 28/10/1976 and the award was also declared on 15/7/1978. The writ petitions have been filed after more than 2 decades. There are no grounds in the writ petitions to entertain such highly barred writ petitions in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Both these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone."
The Full Bench accordingly dismissed those petitions where there was laches. We are also of the view that the Full Bench does not lay down the law that despite laches and delay the petition would be entertained and additional compensation as prayed by the petitioner could be given. Similar view was expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5206 of 2015, Bajji vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2.2.2015 wherein the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches.
In the light of the aforesaid, we find that there is an inordinate delay by the petitioner in approaching the Writ Court. Apart from the laches, we find that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated:5.5.2015.
AKJ.
(Amar Singh Chauhan, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.)