Allahabad High Court
Satpal Singh vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 15 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87621-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13323 of 2024
Petitioner :- Satpal Singh
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Dubey,Rishu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahesh Narain Singh,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. The petitioner has assailed the notification dated 13.07.2012 under Section 4 and notification dated 22.08.2013 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act, 1894') in respect of petitioner's plot Nos.862 area 0.1900 hectare, 863 area 0.1770 hectare, 164 M area 0.3370 hectare, 159 area 0.1900 hectare, situated at Village Sadarpur, Tehsil Dasna, District Ghaziabad and has also prayed for quashing of the award dated 30.12.2013. A further prayer has been made for writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking over possession of the aforesaid land from the petitioner.
2. Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, admits that the petitioner has wrongly taken the ground relating to non compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, 1894 and confines the challenge to alleged irregularity in taking over possession of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admits that there is no specific ground to challenge the award. He submits that it has been challenged as it is consequential to the impugned notifications. He, however, submits that since possession of land is still with the petitioner and mere symbolic possession was taken by the Authority, the notifications as well as the impugned award are liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the procedure for delivery of possession as provided under Order 21 Rule 35, 36, 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not followed.
3. Sri Mahesh Narain Singh, learned counsel appearing for Ghaziabad Development Authority, the acquiring body, submits that, in the past, challenge was advanced to same notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 by other affected persons by filing Writ-C No.2701 of 2018 (Manoj Kumar and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) and it was repelled and writ petition was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench by judgment and order dated 23.01.2018. The same has been placed before us for perusal and therefrom it transpires that the challenge to the same notifications was repelled. Apart from it, the writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, relying on the Constitution Bench of Supreme court in Aflatoon and others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others: AIR 1974 SC 2077.
4. Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute that the aforesaid writ petition related to same acquisition proceedings.
5. We may notice that the Constitution Bench in Aflatoon (supra) examined the consequences of belated challenge made to the acquisition proceedings. In the said case, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made in the year 1966 and the writ petitions were filed after six years in 1972. The Apex Court observed that the petitioners should not be permitted to sit on the fence and allow the Government to complete the acquisition proceedings and then attack on the notifications on grounds which were available to them at the time when the notifications were published and permitting such challenge to sustain would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics.
6. In Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.: AIR 1993 SC 852, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1959 and declaration under Section 6 was made in the year 1969. Challenge to the notifications was made in the year 1973 by filing writ petitions. The Supreme Court, after following the Constitution Bench judgment in Aflatoon (supra), found no justification to accept the challenge made on the ground that no award had been passed or that the concerned appellants had not been dispossessed. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. L. Krishnan & Ors.: (1996) 1 SCC 250 and in Government of A.P. & Ors. Vs. Kollutla Obi Reddy & Ors.: (2005) 6 SCC 493.
7. The instant petition has been filed more than ten years after the issuance of the notifications under the Act, 1894 and declaration of the award. It is nowhere disclosed in the writ petition whether the petitioner has withdrawn the compensation amount or not. In any case, we are not inclined to examine the challenge in respect of the manner in which possession was taken at this belated stage and we prefer to follow the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2018 passed in Writ-C No.2701 of 2013 (Manoj Kumar and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) in which the Supreme Court's decisions referred to hereinabove were relied upon by the Coordinate Bench in dismissing the writ petition.
8. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
