Ashok Kumar And 28 Others vs State Of U.P.And 3 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 6679 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50623 of 2014
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 28 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Sharma,Shaym Shanker Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

Heard Sri U. N. Sharma learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandan Sharma and Sri Shyam Shankar Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3.

The present petition has been filed for the following prayer:-

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 20.07.1965 and 18.11.1965 respectively (ANNEXURE - '1' & '2' respectively to this writ petition);

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the land measuring 201 Bighas & 6 Biswas (125.8125 Acers) situated in Villages Begambad, Budana and Aurangabad Gadana, Pergana Jalalabad, Tehsil Ghaziabad (now Modinagar), District Meerut (now Ghaziabad) in favour of the petitioners as it is not being utilized for the purposes, for which it was acquired;

c) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

d) Award cost of this petition to the petitioners."

The admitted facts of the present case are that the State Government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 1894 Act).

The aforesaid notification was issued clearly mentioning therein that the land which is proposed to be acquired is for the purpose of private company namely Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for the purpose of establishment of a factory.

Undisputedly, the aforesaid Company is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act as such the provisions of Chapter 7 of the 1894 Act are applicable to the present case.

Subsequently, an agreement dated 21.10.1965 was entered into between the State Government and the Company under Section 41 of the 1894 Act and cost towards acquisition was paid and possession of the land was acquired. Thereafter, a notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 18.11.1965 and on 14.12.1965 the land was transferred to the Company.

It is also not in dispute that thereafter the Company established its factory and started production and therefore the purpose for which the land was acquired was also fulfilled.

However, the allegation is that the Company suffered heavy losses and closed its production and the plant and machinery was dismantled and the constructions situated over the land were also demolished.

The submission is that since the Company failed to fulfill its purpose for which the land was acquired, therefore, the petitioners who are legal heirs of the original land owners are entitled to get back the land in their favour.

We have heard Sri U. N. Sharma learned Senior Advocate at length and have extensively perused the record of the present petition. Apart from, undisputed facts which have been mentioned above, it is also on record that apparently on 19.7.2001 a letter was written by the Managing Director U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, which was considered at the State Government level and in view of the fact that the industry could not run successfully and the Company was in heavy debts and was liable for making payments to the various financial institutions, on 25.7.2001 approval was granted to the Company to sell off its land for the purpose of making payments to the financial institutions etc.

There can be no dispute that permission could have been granted by the State Government as per the agreement dated 21.10.1965 executed between the State Government and the Company. Copy of the sale deed executed by the Company in favour of some private party also clearly mentions this fact that the Company has been granted permission to sell off its land so acquired for the purpose of the Company.

On confronted with the question of latches as the notification under Section 4 is dated 29.7.1965 is being challenged after such a long period and there being no explanation for such delay. No plausible explanation was submitted and a perusal of the petition also shows that there is no explanation whatsoever for such delay.

However, it appears that the present writ petition has been filed as an afterthought after Writ Petition No. 31700 of 2014 filed by the Company was withdrawn on 4.7.2014.

The claim of the petitioners is based on the ground that when the purpose of the acquisition is over, the petitioners as successor of the original tenure holders, are entitled to get back the land and for this purpose the notification under challenged are liable to be quashed and the land is liable to be released in favour of the petitioner.

The contention so raised is liable to be rejected on the ground that it is the settled law that on completion of acquisition of the land under the provisions of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State Government and the tenure holders have no title or right whatsoever left in their favour. It is also a settled law that after award it is not open to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Further, the undisputed fact is that the land was actually utilized by the Company for the purpose of which it was acquired namely establishment of a factory, although unfortunately the company suffered huge losses and the factory was dismantled.

A perusal of the agreement between the State Government and the Company clearly shows that it is a matter between the State Government and the Company to settle the issue of fulfillment or non-fulfillment of the purpose for which the land was acquired. The tenure holders or their successors have no right whatsoever with regard to the land so acquired. The agreement clearly provides for restoration of the land in the Government in case the purpose is not fulfilled or if the land or any such part of the said land is required by the State Government. It also provides that in case of violation of any condition by the Company suitable order can be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Company.

Clause 4 (h) of the agreement is quoted hereinunder:-

"(h) that the Second Party shall not transfer the said land or any part thereof by a mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the State Government."

A perusal of the aforesaid clause clearly discloses that the second party i.e. the Company shall not transfer the said land or any part thereof by a mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise except with the previous sanction of the State Government. As per the record of the present petition the said sanction was granted by the State Government on 25.7.2001 as it is clear from perusal of page 69 of the paper book.

In view of the settled law that there is no provision under the 1894 Act regarding release of land under such circumstances as involved in the present petition, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief whatsoever as the land stood vested in the State Government on acquisition leaving no right or title in favour of the tenure holders.

In so far as the delay in filing of the present writ petition is concerned, that too has not been explained. In view of the fact that the original tenure holders have received the compensation and did not challenge the acquisition, it is no longer open to challenge the acquisition of the year 1965 after more than 49 years. Further, even the permission to dispose off the land was granted by the State Government on 25.7.2001 i.e. about more than 13 years back. Therefore, there is no occasion for this court to entertain the present petition.

The present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.9.2014

Lalit Shukla