HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19803 of 2012 Petitioner :- Kanahiya Lal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Mahesh Narain Singh,Siddarth Verma,Vk Birla With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20941 of 2012 Petitioner :- Malkhan Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Mahesh Narain Singh,Vk Birla With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20943 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sukhpal Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Siddhartha Varma With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20945 of 2012 Petitioner :- Kesh Ram And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Sk Mishra With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31832 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mahipal Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Mahesh Narayan Singh With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31878 of 2012 Petitioner :- Harbans Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Mahesh Narain Singh,Vk Birla With Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67593 of 2012 Petitioner :- Batwa Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,J.H. Khan Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the U.P. Industrial Development Corporation and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents in all the writ petitions.
All these writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, therefore, clubbed together and are being decided by means of this common order.
Writ- C- No. 19803 of 2012 (Kanahiya Lal & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others) is treated to be the leading writ petition.
Petitioners had approached this Court earlier by means of Writ-C- No. 37152 of 2011 challenging the acquisition notification under Section 4 along with Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") dated 12th December, 2001 as well as against the subsequent notification under Section 6 along with Section 17 of Act, 1894 dated 4th January, 2003. The writ petition was reported to be delayed by 8 years and 93 days. Challenge to the acquisition proceedings made in the writ petition was on the ground that petitioner tenure holders had not been afforded opportunity to place their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, 1894.
On behalf of the State, a stand was taken that the land was acquired for the purposes of industrial development being adjacent to the industrial area of Sikandarabad. It was also disclosed to the Court that out of the total land owners, 50% have already received their compensation. The department was proceeding for completion of the project. Photo stat copies of the document disclosing the amount of disbursement of compensation amongst various parties were also brought on record.
Taking a holistic view in the matter, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 12 July, 2011 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
In any event, when the argument were being advanced before this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the UPSIDC has drawn our attention to a letter of the ' Kisan Sangarsh Samiti' of Bulandshahar from which it appears that they are eager to give the land provided they get adequate compensation under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997, which is commonly known as 'Karar Niymawali, 1997. To that extent learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended that till date no award has been made nor any compensation has been paid.
Against this background, we are inclined to make a time bound programme to complete the course of action and to protect the interest of farmers vis-a-vis the interest of the State agency. The appearing petitioner/s will make an application before the Collector within a period of 7 days from the date of obtaining a certified copy of the order, if not already made to him. Upon receipt of such application/s, the Collector will independently adjudge the demand of the petitioner/s about settlement of compensation, if necessary he can also take the physical verification of the land to support his independent view. He will also give an opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and/or their respective pleaders. The Collector will complete all exercise to make his report within a period of 21 days from the date of making application. In case the application is already made, the same shall be considered within a period of 7 days from the date of communication of this order and the same shall be sent to the State who is the final authority, to take a decision within a period of one month thereafter positively. The decision of the State will be final and binding upon all the parties. Physical possession, if not taken by the UPSIDC, will be taken after completion of the course of action, as directed by this order, with regard to settlement of compensation to be paid to the petitioners.
Instead of making an application for determination of the compensation in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award of Agreement) Rules, 1997, commonly called the "Karar Niyamawali, 1997", as was permitted by the High Court under order dated 12th July, 2011, petitioners made an application praying that since the acquisition notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 had not been issued within two years, their land may be exempted from the acquisition proceedings.
This application was considered by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, who came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the application as per the order dated 12th October, 2011. The papers in that regard were forwarded to the State Government. The State Government vide order dated 13th December, 2011 in the facts of the case found no illegality in the decision of the District Magistrate. The State Government rejected the prayer made by the petitioners for their land being exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Challenging the aforesaid two orders, these writ petitions have been filed.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the writ petitions referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that it was not open to the petitioners to seek exemption of their land from the acquisition proceedings, once their writ petition had been decided under order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12th July, 2011 with the liberty to seek fixation of compensation only in accordance with Karar Niyamawali, 1997. Petitioners are bound by the order of the High Court dated 12th July, 2011 and cannot travel beyond the same. Their plea for their land being exempted from acquisition notification has rightly been rejected. Chapter with regard to the acquisition proceedings, vis-a-vis the petitioners stood closed with the dismissal of writ petition no. 37152 of 2011.
We may also record that the High Court had restrained physical possession of the plots by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation till the matter of compensation was decided. Petitioners taking benefit of the said order resisted their dispossession. The petitioners cannot now be permitted to content that acquisition proceedings are rendered bad as possession had not been taken. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order of the High Court dated 12th July, 2011, they could have challenged the same before the Apex Court. So long as the order of the High Court stands, there cannot be any other relief in favour of the petitioners except for payment of compensation under the Karar Niyamawali, 1997.
For the reasons what have been recorded above, all these writ petitions are dismissed.
However, it shall be open to the petitioners to file a fresh application for payment of compensation in accordance with the judgment of the High Court dated 12th July, 2011 within two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order. If this is done the same shall be considered in accordance with law at the earliest possible. All consequential action shall be taken immediately thereafter.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 19.5.2015
Sushil/-
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19803 of 2012
Petitioner :- Kanahiya Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,G.P. Srivastava,J.H. Khan,Mahesh Narain Singh,Siddarth Verma,Vk Birla
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on the separate sheets.
(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 19.5.2015
Sushil/-