Allahabad High Court
C/M Ram Swaroop Janta Higher ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 February, 2023
Bench: Sunita Agarwal, Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 194 of 2023
Petitioner :- C/M Ram Swaroop Janta Higher Secondary School And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Yadav,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
This is a wholly misconceived petition seeking to challenge the acquisition notification issued on 24.11.2005 and 13.7.2006, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The petitioners herein claim to be the tenure holders of the plot in question, which was subject matter of acquisition. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the possession of the plot in question of the acquired land has been handed over to the Development Authority of 11.7.2008. The award was declared on 31.12.2013. It is sought to be submitted by the petitioner that only symbolic possession of the plot in question has been taken and now the Development Authority namely Hapur Pilkhua Development Authority, Hapur, is trying to develop a park for the residents of housing scheme, namely, Anand Vihar Housing Scheme over Arazi No.499, area 0.1640 hectares, which is being used by the petitioners' institution as play ground of the institution concerned.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the compensation for the plot in question deposited with the Government Treasury, has not been withdraw by the petitioner till date.
In paragraphs no. 11,12,13,14 and 29 of the writ petition it is sought to be submitted that the physical possession of the land in question has never been taken by the Development Authority and, therefore, there arose no occasion for the petitioners to challenge the acquisition in question. All of a sudden, on 10.8.2022, the Officers of the Development Authority came on the spot and threatened to dispossess the petitioners and, as such, the cause of action for filing the present petition arose.
Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the Development Authority has provided a copy of the judgment and order dated 23.5.2016 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.2104 of 2006 (Lahari Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with other writ petitions, wherein the challenge to the acquisition notification in question, subject matter of dispute herein, has been turned down.
Having noted above fact, we find inherent fallacy in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners when it is submitted that physical possession of the land in question has not been taken by the Development Authority and hence, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the acquisition notification.
We may note that there is no concept of transfer of actual physical possession in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There is no difference between the symbolic possession and physical possession with the meaning of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The transfer of possession of the acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by preparation of possession memo is a valid exercise and the acquired land vests with the State absolutely, with the preparation of possession memo. This issue has been answered by the Apex Court in case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal 2020 (8) SCC 129. Any possession of the tenure holder or any other person over the acquired land, after preparation of the possession memo can only be that of an unauthorized occupant. Even otherwise, in the acquisition in question, urgency Clause under Section 17(4) had been invoked and the challenge to the same has been turned down in the judgment and order dated 23.5.2016. With the transfer of possession by preparation of the possession memo in the year 2008, the acquired land namely, the land in question, vests with the State Government. There is subsequent transfer of possession of the land in question by the State Government to the Development Authority. The award of the acquired land has also been declared in the year 2013. The acquisition proceedings, thus stood concluded about 10 years ago.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in question they can resist their dispossession by challenging the acquisition notification, is found misconceived.
The possession of the petitioners after the preparation of possession memo, as noted above, is that of an unauthorized occupants. Admittedly, no challenge has been made by the petitioners to the acquisition of the land by means of the acquisition notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the relevant point of time. Liberty cannot be granted to the petitioners to sustain the challenge at this moment. The writ petition is found devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to seek disbursement of compensation for the land in question by presenting relevant papers pertaining to their right, title and interest in the land in question before the competent authority.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023
S.K.
