KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., NOIDA v. STATE OF U.P.& ANR

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 810

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: C.K. THAKKER, D.K. JAIN

Case summary

KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMITI LTD., NOIDA v. STATE OF U.P.& ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 15 S. C. R 810 Kl:;NDRIYA KARAMCHA. RI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMIT! LTD. , NOIDA v. STATE OF U. P. ·& ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. r6850-51 of 2003) . 8 NOVEMBER 7, 2008 [C. K. THAKKER AND D. K. JAIN, JJ. ] I _) ) Urban Development: \ Land Acqu_isition Act, 1897; Ss. 11, 18 and 28A: Acquisition of land - Compensation - Reference - Compensation enhanced by Reference Court - Challenged by State - Some of land owners, including appellant, filing application in terms of Section 28A of the Act for enhancement of compensation as they were not parties to Reference - District Collector kept the application pending in view of Government's Order directing the authorities to keep \, application under Section 28A of the Act pending till final decision in the matter under challenge is arrived at by the High Court/Supreme Court - Challenged by appellant and others - Dismissed by High Court - Review Petition dismissed by .

High Court - Correctness of - Held: In case, Reference Court enhanced compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, any person t> \ interested in the land covered by the same acquisition n_qtification could seek same relief by filing an application • under Section 28A oMhe Act - Hence, impugned order not / · sustainable to that extent and set aside. . ,__ Application under Section 28A of the Act - Kept pending by District Collector in view of State Government' Orders - Justification of... :. Held: De,. cision rendered by Reference Court enhancing compensation did not attain finality as it was·sub ' KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN 811 SAMIT! LTD. , NOIDA v. STATE OF U. P. & ANR. judice before the High Court, a superior Court - Under the • .. circumstances, no infirmity found in the action of the. District Collector in not deciding the applications.

Application under Section 28A ·•of· the·· Act - Maintainability of - Held: The question as to maintainability of the application is kept open and to be decided after final decision arrived at by the High Court/Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the State against the order ofReference Court. • Nevr Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh had acquisitioned certain land for planned development for public purpose. The Special land Acquisition Officer awarded . compensation . to landowners. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, some of the land owners sought Reference under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Reference Court enhanced the compensation. Appellant- Samiti could not make Reference earlier; it, therefore, filed an application through its President in the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) along with other land owners under Section 28A of the Act for ·· grant of benefit of enhanced compensation.

However, no decision had been taken by the District Collector and the Application was kept pending allegedly in pursuance of policy decisions taken by the State Government vide its Orders dated J~nuary 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 to the effect that the applications filed by the persons who had not sought Reference should be kept pending till the matter is finally disposed of by the. High Court as well as by the Supreme Court and no enhanced compensation should be paid to them. Aggrieved by the non-disposal of his application under Section 28A of the Act, appellant filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Review. Petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed. by the High Court. Hence the present appeal and connected appeals. .. ---------- Partly allowing the appeals; the Court .. "' HELD: 1. It is true that the land was purchased by the appellant from the Samiti and his name had been entered in Revenue Record.

But the appellant was also the President of the Samiti and an application was made by him in 'the capacity of the President. This Court would have entered into the said question provided it had been considered by the High Court and appropriate decision • had been taken thereon. The High Court, however, has ~ not decided the maintainability or otherwise of application and locus standi of the appellant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner before the Court could not be said to be a 'little Indian' who could not seek Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act because of 'poverty and ignorance'. This Court, therefore, leave the question of maintainability of application under Section 28A of the Act by the t ,, appellant open. [Paras 18 and 19] [821-F-H; 822-A-B] Nanak Chand & Ors. v. State of U. P. , (1996) 2 All WC 1294, referrer! to. 2. 1.

It is true that once Reference Court decides the matter and enhances the compensation, a person who is otherwise eligible to similar relief and who has not sought Reference, may apply under Section 28A of the ... Act. If the conditions for application of the said provision • have been complied with, such person_would IJe entitled to the same relief _which has been granted to "other persons seeking Refe_rence and getting enhanced compensation. But, it is equally true that if Reference Court decides the matter and the State or acquiring body challenges·such enhanced amount of compensation and the matter is "perlding . either before the High Court or before this Court, the Collector would be within his power r ~ or·authority to keep the application under Section 28A of the Act pending till the matter is finally decided by the · KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN 813 SAMIT! LTD. , NOIDA v. STATE OF U. P. & ANR. ~ High Court or the Supreme Court as the case may be.

The • reason being that the decision rendered by the Reference Court enhancing compensation has not attained 'finality' and is sub judice before a superior Court. It is, in . the light of the said circumstance that the State ofUttar Pradesh issued two Government orders on January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001. Hence, no illegality was committed by the trial Court in keeping the • applications under Section 28A of the Act pending till the ,. issue 'is finally settled by the Court and a decision has been arrived at. The point is no longer res integra. [Paras 29, 30 and 31] [826-E-H; 827-A-B] Mewa Ram (Deceased) by his Lrs. & Ors. v. State of Haryana through The Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, (1986) 4 SCC 151; The Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd. , Bhatinda v. Union of India and others, k (1991)1 SCC 174; Babua Ram & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Anr. 'f (1995) 2 SCC 689; Union of India & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. , (1995) 2 SCC 736 and Union oflndia (UOI) & Anr.

v. Hansoli Devi & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 273, relied on. 2. 2. The Collector was right in not deciding the application in view of the fact that the order passed by the Reference Court was challenged by the Authority by filing appeals before the High Court. The High Court had entertained the appeals and also passed interim order. ~ • The contention of the appellants before the High Court that Government Orders dated January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 were illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires has no force. In fact, those Government Orders are in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Babua Ram and other cases. Hence, no infirmity is found in the action of the Collector in not deciding the applications. [Para 34] [829- 8-D]' . ,, . . J. C. Gupta, Vinay Gupta, Vikas Khurana and Bela Maheshwari for the Appellant. KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN 815 SAMITI LTD. , NOIDA v. STATE OF U. P. & ANR. ). ,, ,.. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG.

, Vishwajit Singh, Ritesh Agarwal, Ravindra Kumar, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Gunnam -t Venkateswara Rao and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra for th·e Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. K. THAKKER, J. 1. In the present group of appeals, the . , appellants have challenged the judgment and final order dated September 03, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature I at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 31958 of 2001 and companion matters as also the order dated January 04, 2002 passed in Review Civil Miscellaneous No. 85091 of 2001 and cognate matters. 2. Since common questions of fact and law have been involved in all these-appeals, it is appropriate to deal with and decide them by a common judgment. ; . ,, 3. To appreciate the controversy raised by the appellants, it may be appropriate to narrate the facts of the case in Civil' Appeal Nos. 6850-6851 of 2003. According to the Kendriya Karamchari Sehkari Grah Nirman Samiti Ltd.

('the Samiti' for short)-appellant herein, proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of 325. 353 acres of land of village Chhalera, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar had been initiated. The ~ land was sought to be acquired for public purpose, viz. , Planned Development of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Gautam Budh Nagar. Preliminary notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 ofthe Act by applying urgency clause, was issued on October 30, 1987. It was published in the Official Gazette on February 27, 1988. The final notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was ;ssued on June 12, 1989 and published in Official Gazette on . , A December 14, 1989. Notices were published in the newspaper indicating acquisition of land of various land-owner§ on February 05, 1990. Award was made by the Special Land - ---- ...

- - ·A Acq'uisition Officer, NOIDA, District Ghaziabad in·terms of -. A Dispute No. 1-35 'of 1988-92 on February 04, 1992. According "" to the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded ... ' compensation to the land-owners at the rate of Rs. 43. 64 ps. per sq. yard. It may be stated that according to the appellant- ··s Samiti, it purchased a part"of the land on November 15, 1990. The land was ~ransferred in the name of the Samiti. It is the case of th,e appellant Samiti that several land-owners were not -ls~tisfied with the amount of award offered by the Land \ Acquisition Officer and, they sought Reference un9er Section 18 of the Act. More than 50 such References, therefore, came up_ for consideration before the Reference Court. The Coun' of the Additional Upper District Judge-X, Ghaziabad by judgmellt and order dated August 28, 2000 enhanced the compensation awarded to the land-owners by holding that the land-owners were entitled to a sum of Rs. 148. 75 ps. per sq. yd.

with 30% solatium and 12% interest per annum. It was also observed that the amount paid pursuant to the award passed by the Land 1- Acquisitfon Officer would be adjusted while making payment by the authorities as per the order in Reference. 4~ So far as the appellant-Samiti is concerned, it could not make Reference along with other land-owners under Section 18 of the Act. It, therefore, filed an application through its President Charan Singh, son of late Budh Singh on September 06, 2000 to the Additional District Magistrate (Land "' Acquisition), Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 28A of the . ~ Act, inter alia, praying therein that the land of the applicant had been acquired for public purpose, the applicant, who was the . President of the Samiti, had purchased the land from the Samiti in-December, -1990 and his name had also been entered in the ~~ Revenue Record. It was also stated by him that he could not challenge the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

The Reference Court, however, decided the Reference in other cases and granted enhanced compensation. The same benefit, -v ). therefore, should be allowed to him also on the basis of the order passed by the Reference Court. The said application was .. KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMITI 81-7 . ;.... made on September 06, 2000 i. e. within a period of three ). months from the date of decision in the Reference. 5. The main grievance of the applicant was that though in the light . of the decision of Reference Court allowing the Reference and granting enhanced compensation to other landowners, the appellant also ought to have been granted the similar benefit and he ought to have been paid additional ~ amount as held by the Reference Court, no decision had been ,; taken by the Additional District Magistrate and his application was kept pending.

According to the applicant, probably it was done keeping in view the fact that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Reference Court, the authorities preferred appeal being FAQ No. 456 of 2001, etc. and the order passed by the Reference Court was challenged in the High Court. It also appears that the High Court entertained those appeals and also passed interim order of stay on September 17, 2001. By ,, the said order, operation of the order passed by the Reference Court was stayed on condition that NOIDA would deposit the entire amount awarded under the Reference within two months from the date of the order. The claimants were permitted to withdraw 25% of such amount without furnishing security and further 25% on furnishing security. The remaining amount (50%) was ordered to be invested in Fixed Term Deposit in a Nationalized Bank. ·-' :,..... 'The entire controversy has been considered by this . E Court in Babua Ram and Ors. v. State of U. P. dated ,. 4. 10. 1994 rendered in C.

A Nos. 563/94 & batch and held that since an appeal has been preferred by the State against the award of the Dist. Judge made under Section 26 of the Act, the proper course open to the LAO. , on an application made under Section 28-A(1) of the Act, would be to keep the appli~ations under Section 28-A(1) pending :...... till the appeal filed against the award of the Dist. Judge is disposed of by the High Court and· then to take action as . 'per Sectipn 28-A(2)_of the Act. Following the law laid down therein and subject to directions contained therein, we hold that the_ High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions, Therefor. e, the order of the High Court is· set a. side.. The award of the Collector made. under Section 28- ~ . . A(2) is·q~ashed. The Collector/LAO. is directed to keep ~- · ·· . . the applic;ation filed . under Section 28-A( 1) of the Act ' . :~ '·,' ' . - . . ' . . ·H KENDRIYA KARAMCHARI SEHKARI GREH NIRMAN SAMITI 829 ~.

~- pending till the disposal of the appeal. On receipt of the judgment from the High Court or in an appeal by this Court the L. A. O. is directed to determine the compensation based on the final judgment according to law". 34. In our opinion, therefore, the Collector was right in not 8 deciding the application in view of the fact that the order passed by the Reference Court was challenged by the New Okhla 4 Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) by filing first appeals ;' before the High Court. The High Court had entertained the appeals and also passed interim order. The contention of the appellants before the High Court that Government Orders dated January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 were illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires has no force. In fact, those Government Orders are in consonance with law laid down by this Court in Babua Ram and other cases. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the action of the Collector in not deciding the applications. 35.

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed. The order passed by the High Court in all these matters are set aside but validity of Government Orders dated January 14, 1994 and June 13, 2001 is upheld. 36. We may, however, hasten to add that as observed hereinabove, we are not deciding about the locus standi of the . ,I,__ appellant. As and when the question will come up before the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer, after the disposal of first appeals before the High Court or before this Court or after the decision attains finality, such question as to maintainability may be decided on its own merits after hearing the parties. All contentions of all part! es are kept open. 37. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent -- indicated above. In view of the facts and in the circumstances .. t. of the cases, however, there shall be no order as to costs. S. K. S. Appeals partly allowed.