Dismissed

Smt. Shabeena Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2018WRIC/63013/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation to claim benefits under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court held that since no award was made for the disputed unclaimed land and the petitioner accepted alternative land, the deeming provision did not apply.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting petitioner's representation was upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Smt. Shabeena Parveen Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No.39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 63013 of 2017

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Shabeena Parveen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Swaroop Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

It is against the rejection of the representation filed by the petitioner for claiming the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013¹ by order dated 20 September 2017 that this petition has been filed.

¶7

The dispute is in regard to a small portion of land measuring 0.20 acres situated in Gata No.39 in Village Dhimri, District Moradabad that was included in the acquisition proceedings that had been initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894² by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act on 26 March 1996 followed by a declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 18 December 1997. The total area of land that was sought to be acquired was 63.685 acres, out of which possession of 59.325 acres of land was taken by the State and handed over to the Development Authority on 15 June 1998. The possession of the land measuring 0.20 acres in Gata No.39 was not taken as land was shown to be an unclaimed land. Subsequently, on the basis of an order dated 18 February 2005, it was recorded in the

¶8

1 the 2013 Act

¶9

2 the 1894 Act

¶10

¶11

names of Maulabux and Saluwa. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land after 2005 from these two persons and his name was entered in the revenue records by an order dated 18 November 2008. The petitioner claims that since possession was not taken nor compensation was paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶12

Since no decisioin was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner, Writ-C No.13211 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner which was disposed of on 4 April 2017 with a direction to the State Government to take a decision on the representation. The representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Principal Secretary in the Housing and Urban Planning by order dated 20 September 2017. It is this order that has been impugned in this petition.

¶13

It has been stated in the order that the award was not made under the provisions of Section 11 of the 1894 Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would not apply. It has also been stated that after the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue records, adjustment of the land was made and the petitioner was provided alternative equivalent land by order dated 9 May 2013 and possession of the said land was also given to the petitioner on 29 May 2013. It has, therefore, been stated that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶14

It is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would apply

¶15

¶16

inasmuch as neither possession of 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 was taken nor compensation was paid to the petitioner.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for Moradabad Development Authority have, however, submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the State Government rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for claiming the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is their submission that the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would not apply since the award was not made in regard to 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 and even otherwise, the petitioner was offered equivalent land which was accepted by the petitioner and possession of the land that was offered was also taken by the petitioner.

¶18

We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

It is no doubt true that 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 was included in the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act as also the declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act but it is also true that the award was not made for the said land for the reason that the said land was unclaimed land at the time when the award was made. Section 24(2) of the 2013, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is reproduced below:

¶20

“ 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases :– (1) …..........

¶21

¶22

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

¶23

…............”

¶24

A bare perusal of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would reveal that the foremost condition for it to be applicable is that the award should have been made five years or more prior to 1 January 2014 which is the date on which the 2013 Act came into force. It is an admitted position that the award for 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 was not made. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 would not apply and the State Government, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for this reason.

¶25

It also transpires from a perusal of the order that the award was not made for the aforesaid 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 nor possession was taken for the reason that the said land was unclaimed. It was subsequently in 2005 that the names of Maulabux and Saluwa were entered and the petitioner subsequently purchased the land from these two persons. When the petitioner made a claim for payment of compensation, the Authority offered equivalent land to the petitioner which the petitioner accepted and also took possession. The petitioner, therefore,

¶26

¶27

cannot claim that acquisition proceedings in regard to 0.20 acres of land situated in Gata No.39 stand lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶28

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, we see no good reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶29

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Date :-02.01.2018 SK

¶31

(Dilip Gupta, J.)

¶32

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

Smt. Shabeena Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shabeena Parveen v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ved Prakash and 47 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Cheta and 35 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satveer and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lal Mani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Kishan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others