Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Tripathi,J.) Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Sri B. Dayal, for the Meerut Development Authority, Sri Akhileshwar Singh, for the respondent No.8, U.P.S.I.D.C., Meerut and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Lucknow.
Parties have exchanged their affidavits, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is finally decided at the admission stage itself. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayers:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the respondent no.1(Annexure No. XIV to the writ petition).
(ii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to exempt the petitioners land from exemption under Land Acquisition Act.
(iii)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus alternatively directing the respondents No. 1 to 7 to get the evaluation of the land and the existing factory/Building carried out as per prevailing market rate fix the amount of compensation on the basis of valuation amount and pay alongwith interest @ 18% P.A.
(iv)To grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem proper and justified.
(v)Award cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
In the present matter the petitioner has prayed that plot No. 49 (area 0.172 hectare), situated in Village Achhraura, Tehsil and District Meerut, be exempted from acquisition and challenged the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the respondent no.1, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner regarding the exemption of the land under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred as an "Act"). In the present matter notification under section 4 of the Act had been gazetted on 14.08.1987 and section 6 of the Act had been notified on 04.09.1987 and the award was made on 22.02.1990. The present disputed plot i.e. plot No. 49 was also part of the acquisition proceeding.
In the present matter the possession had been taken over by the competent authority on 19.05.1995 and immediately thereafter the Meerut Development Authority (herein after referred as 'M.D.A.') had handed over the possession to the U.P.S.I.D.C on 27.05.1995. The said land had been acquired for the purpose of "Planned Industrial Development" at District Meerut. The memo of possession dated 19.05.1995 has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit (Annexure No.2 to the 2nd Supplementary Affidavit filed by the 'M.D.A).' Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate had submitted that in the present matter the petitioner was running a factory over the plot in question and same was mutated in the Nagar Mahapalika and the petitioner continued to pay the municipal tax in this regard. He had also brought to our notice that in the present matter a survey was conducted on 30.01.1990 and to this effect an information had been sent by the Vice Chairman, 'M.D.A.' to the State Government vide letter dated 11.05.2009. He has also drawn our attention towards Annexure No.11 to the writ petition by which the local revenue authorities had made a survey on 30.01.1990 in which it had been mentioned that there was factory and abadi over the plot No. 49. He submits that the impugned order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the State Government is not justified and the same is not in accordance with law. Specially on the ground that 'M.D.A.' and the State Authority had taken only symbolic possession and the petitioner is in actual possession over the property in dispute, therefore, liable to get the benefit of section 48 of the Act and his land is liable to be exempted.
Whereas Mr. B. Dayal counsel for the 'M.D.A.' had opposed the contention of the petitioner and stated that land in question was required for the establishment of Planned Shatabdi Nagar Scheme at Village Orcha and Gata No. 49 area 0-13-12 Bigha was also acquired strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In this regard the section 4 and 6 of the Act had been gazetted on 14.08.1987 and 04.09.1987 respectively and thereafter the possession had been taken over on 19.05.1995 by the M.D.A. and the same had been handed over to the U.P.S.I.D.C. on 27.05.1995. In this regard very detailed information had been sent by the 'M.D.A.' to the State Government by which it had also been informed that under the grave urgency the land had been acquired and immediately the same has been handed over to the U.P.S.I.D.C. for industrial development. He has also drawn our attention that claim of the petitioner regarding factory or construction is also not sustainable specially under the background that due to some illegal construction over the land, the notice under section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 had also been given to the original owner of the property in question on 14.07.1987. The said notice had also been brought on record by the petitioner through annexure no.2 to the writ petition. He has also stated that whenever the authority identified any piece of land for acquisition and the survey which is required prior to the notification of Section 4 of the Act is being made, the tenure holder starts making construction in a haphazard manner, so that they may prove before the acquiring authority regarding the construction or old abadi and finally pray for an exemption of the land from the acquisition proceedings. He has categorically submitted that whatever the illegal construction over the plot, the same had been removed by M.D.A. and the same was in violation to the provision of U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973. So for demolition part is concerned it had been accepted by Sri O. P. Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner himself has purchased the disputed property which was owned by Surajmal and the sale deed was executed on 03.10.1986 as averred in Paragraph no.7 to the writ petition the petitioner claims that since he has handed over the possession on 10.02.1996, the petitioner continued to be under possession.
Mr. B. Dayal has refuted the claim of the petitioner regarding the alleged possession specially on the ground that once the possession had been taken over by the authority i.e. 'M.D.A.' on 19.05.1995 then there was no occasion for retention of the said plot by the petitioner. He has also stated that once the possession has been taken over by the competent authority and thereafter if tenure holder claims to be actual possession of the land in question the same is tantamount to be illegal encroachment over the acquired land.
In Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Panjab & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1239, while dealing with same issue the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by April 17, 1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Sri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchanama in the presence of Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession."
Sri Akhileshwar Singh, learned counsel for the U.P.S.I.D.C has also filed short counter affidavit brining on record that the total area of 156 acres of land was given to the respondent no.8 the U.P.S.I.D.C for Planned Industrial Development on 27.05.1995 by the 'M.D.A.' and it was agreed that external development of the land like construction of master plan, road and drain etc. were to be developed by the 'M.D.A.' and remaining development work were required to be performed by the U.P.S.I.D.C. He has also submitted that after the possession of the land to the U.P.S.I.D.C. The layout of the industrial area namely Udyog Nagar, Meerut was approved and accordingly industrial plots were alloted to the industries and most of them have established and running there industries and full fledged industrial township alongwith all basis infracture such as roads, drain, culverts, electricities etc. had already came in existence and the area is already developed as per plan.
In these circumstances learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the State Government rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner after appreciating the correct facts and rightly appreciated the correct proposition of law, the same is sustainable under the present facts and circumstances of the case and liable to be upheld by this Hon'ble Court.
We have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents counsels and perused the record. The State Government while rejecting the claim had clearly mentioned that the actually survey was conducted and if there were some actual construction or abadi over the plots under the acquisition the same had been exempted from the award and in the present matter the possession had been taken over on 19.05.1995 by the 'M.D.A.' and immediately on 27.05.1995 the same had been handed over to the U.P.S.I.D.C. and once the possession had been taken over by the competent authority the same is being vested in the State free from all encumbrances as per the provision of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the land in question cannot be divested.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had considered that once land has been vested in the State whether can be divested. In case of V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. The Administrative Officer and Ors., the Hon'le Apex Court has made following observation in paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, which is quoted below:-
"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily stipulated period. (Vide: Avadh Behari Yadav v. State of Bihar and. Ors. MANU/SC/002/1996: (1995) 6 SCC 31; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. (Supra); Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman and Ors. MANU/SC/1269/1996: (1996) 6 SCC 424, M. Ramalinga Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. MANU/SC/0291/2000: (2000) 4 SCC 322; and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Syed Akbar and Ors. MANU/SC/0987/2004: AIR 2005 SC 492).
17. The said land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons-interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/abandoned under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act, or Under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, once the possession of the land has been taken and the land vests in the State, free from all encumbrances. (Vide: State of Madhya Pradesh v. V.P. Sharma MANU/SC/0200/1966: AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shri Avinash Sharma MANU/SC/0417/1970: AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0392/1993 AIR 1993 SC 2517; Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and Ors. MANU/SC/0466/1993: (1993) 2 SCC 84 and Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India v. Subodh Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0268/2011: (2011) 11 SCC 100).
18. The meaning of the word 'vesting', has been considered by this Court time and again. In Fruit and Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement Trust MANU/SC/0082/1956: AIR 1957 SC 344, this Court held that the meaning of word 'vesting' varies as per the context of the Statute, under which the property vests. So far as the vesting Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act is concerned, the Court held as under.-
In the cases contemplated by Sections 16 and 17, the property acquired becomes the property of Government without any condition or; limitations either as to title or possession. The legislature has made it clear that vesting of the property is not for any limited purpose or limited duration.
21. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. Syed Akbar (Supra), this Court considered this very issue and held that, once the land has vested in the State, it can neither be divested, by virtue of Section 48 of the Act, nor can it be reconveyed to the persons-interested/tenure holders, and that therefore, the question of restitution of possession to the tenure holder, does not arise. (See also: Pratap v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1101/1996: AIR 1996 SC 1296; Chandragaudaj Ramgonda Patil v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1264/1996: (1996) 6 SCC 405; State of Kerala and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran Pillai and Anr. MANU/SC/0731/1997: AIR 1997 SC 2703; Printers (Mysore). Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and Ors. MANU/SC/0307/2004: (2004) 4 SCC 460; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah MANU/SC/0988/2005: (2005) 12 SCC 508; and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0956/2011: (2011) 9 SCC 354).
22.In view of the above, the law can be crystallized to mean, that once the land is acquired and it vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, it is not the concern of the land owner, whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non-grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to only receive compensation for the same, unless the acquisition proceeding is itself challenged. The State neither has the requisite power to reconvey the land to the person-interested, nor can such person claim any right of restitution on any ground, whatsoever, unless there is some statutory amendment to this effect."
In view of the above relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court, in the present matter the award was made on 22.02.1990. The Land Acquisition Act itself is a complete Code. As prayed by the petitioner himself through prayer no.3 that any alternative direction may be issued to the respondents No. 1 to 7 to get the evaluation of the land as per prevailing market rate and fix the amount of compensation on the basis of valuation amount and pay alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. The said prayer is not justified, specially under the present facts and circumstances of the case, the award was declared on 22.02.1990. The petitioner has every right to challenge the said award by means of reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, if he was not agreed with the compensation fixed by the authority regarding actual valuation of the property in question, he had every remedy to approach to the competent authority regarding the redressal of his grievance.
Therefore, in aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the present matter under extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the non-payment of compensation and interest, he may approach to the competent authority regarding his grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observations as made above.
Order Date :- 11.02.2014 VKG