Hon'ble Ram Autar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent on this appeal and gone through the record.
By Writ Petition No. 36296 of 2009, the petitioner prayed for a direction to quash the notification dated 1.6.2000 under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (4), and the notification dated 30.12.2000 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called as the 'Act'). She had also prayed for a decision on her representation in pursuance to the judgment dated 6.5.2009 passed in writ petition No. 13611 of 2002 (Mahendra Vs. State of U.P. And others) and till disposal of the representation, restrain respondent No.3 to take possession of the land in dispute.
A counter affidavit of S.K. Allen, Assistant Law Officer, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did not propose to file rejoinder affidavit. He sought permission of the court to withdraw the writ petition.
Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 had raised strong objection to the prayer for withdrawing the writ petition. It is stated that the writ petition had been filed on concealment of facts and by manipulating the record.
Sri Mishra, submitted that Khasra No. 307, plot No. 105, Khata No.109 area 9 Bighas and 1 Biswa of land was acquired by the State Government for NOIDA vide notification under Sections 4 (1) dated 25.3.1998 and declaration under Section 6/17of the Act dated 6.7.1988. The possession was taken over by the State Government and was handed over to the NOIDA on 28.3.1990. The award was made on 17.8.1990. The acquisition attained the finality and that the Khasra No. 307 area 9 Bighas and 1 Biswa vested in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 including Khasra No. 307 area 9-1-0 Bighas were annexed to the counter affidavit.
It is stated that the petitioner Rajo Devi was not satisfied with the award. She was claiming that out of 9 Bighas and 1 Biswa land, there were constructions on 2 Bighas and 1 Biswa of land. She claimed enhanced compensation for the land and filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, IX Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad by his order dated 23.11.1993 allowed the references partly including LAR No.519/90 filed by Rajo Devi allowing compensation for constructions on the land. The NOIDA challenged the order allowing the reference in First Appeal. The First Appeal No. 599 of 1993 NOIDA Vs. Smt. Rajjo Devi was allowed and the matter was remanded to the reference Court. In the meantime Smt. Rajo Devi filed a Civil Suit No. 7 of 1991 claiming that out of Khasra No. 307 area 9-1-0 Bighas, the abadi in 2-1-0 Bighas had not been acquired. In the plaint she did not make any reference about her pending Reference No. 519/90. The application for making reference and the plaint of the suit were both filed through Sri Rakesh Jain, Advocate, practicing at Ghaziabad.
The trial court recorded the findings that the acquisition had been validly made but compensation had to be given in accordance with law. The trial court however by its judgment dated 7.7.1993 decreed the suit after taking evidence and recording findings in favour of NOIDA, and directed that the respondents shall not demolish the constructions and dispossess the petitioner from Khasra No. 307, area 2 Bighas and 1 Biswa without effecting legal process. The NOIDA filed a First Appeal No. 599 of 1993 against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The first Appeal is pending. There is no interim order in the appeal.
Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra submitted that concealing all these facts viz., acquisition of land, filing of reference and suit, this writ petition was filed annexing a notification dated 1.6.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the State Government under Sections 4/17 of the Act. On page 3 of the notification, the petitioner made overwriting and manipulated the records. The number and area of last 5 or 6 plots in the photocopy of the notification were deliberately blurred, out and plot No. 307 area 2-1-0 had been written by hand. A comparison of this notification dated 1.6.2000 along with notification under Section 4 annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-CA-8, would show that photocopy of notification annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition was deliberately blurred in respect of last 5 or 6 plots and plot No. 307 area 2-1-0 was written by hand by making overwriting. A perusal of notification dated 1.6.2000 Annexure-CA-8 to the counter affidavit, would indicate that by this notification, Khasra No. 317 area 5-13-0 was acquired. The manipulation of record and concealment of facts was clear and apparent. The petitioner had not chosen to file rejoinder affidavit and in the circumstances she sought to withdraw the writ petition. It is unfortunate that the petitioner has, after seeking reference under Section 18 in which she also claimed compensation for the constructions, filed a civil suit and thereafter when she apprehended to loose the possession of 2 Bighas and 1 Biswa land with constructions, filed this writ petition by making overwriting on the notification dated 1.6.2000 which had no concern with the acquisition of Khasra No. 307 and which stood acquired by notifications under Sections 4/6/17 issued on 25.3.1988 and 6.7.1988 for which award was made on 17.8.1990 and possession was taken over on 28.3.1990. The court misled by false representation passed an interim order on 21.7.2009, directing the parties to maintain status quo.
The counsel for the petitioner had not made any submission in defence and appeared to have accepted the position as a mistake. Ordinarily, this Court would have allowed the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition, but after concealment and manipulation has been brought to our notice it will not be appropriate to leave the matter without considering its effect and in punishing the petitioner for polluting the stream of justice.
The possession of the land in question under the Act was taken after payment of compensation to the petitioner under the award and the matter of enhancement of compensation is pending and therefore there was no justification for grant of interim injunction or to protect the possession of the petitioner. In Laxmi Chand and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others [1996 (7) SCC 218], it was held that:- "the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The civil court thereby is devoid of justification to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the civil court.". In the present case, this Court may observe that the civil court did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under the Land Acquisition Act and that the decree passed by the civil court is of no consequence at all. The first appeal is thus liable to be allowed.
The concealment of facts and manipulation of records strongly deprecated. The writ petition has been dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
This First Appeal is allowed in view of above observations made in the judgment and order dated 11.11.2009, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 36296 of 2009. Consequently, judgment and order dated 7.7.1993, passed by the court below is set aside.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010 AR