Mere Reservation For Future Planning Not 'Utilisation' Of Acquired Land: Allahabad High Court Directs Restoration To Landowner
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere reservation of land for “future planning” without any actual development or use of the land does not amount to 'utilization' under Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 provides acquisition of the land by State Government under the Land Acquisition Act...
The Allahabad High Court has held that mere reservation of land for “future planning” without any actual development or use of the land does not amount to 'utilization' under Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 provides acquisition of the land by State Government under the Land Acquisition Act for development. The proviso to Sub-section (1) provides that upon application by the landowner, the State can restore the land back to the original owner if it is not 'utilized' for the purpose for which it was acquired within 5 years from the date of acquisition and if the land is being restored to the landowner, he must pay the charges spent on development of the land by the State as prescribed.
The bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“…reservation of land for “future planning” in the absence of actual development or use, does not amount to utilisation within the meaning of the said provision.”
Petitioner approached the Court challenging the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on grounds that the urgency clause was wrongly invoked, it was further pleaded that despite being in continuous possession of the land, the petitioner was wrongly disposed by the Authority by carrying out illegal auction proceedings during the pendency of the writ petition and without paying any compensation to the petitioner.
One of the questions which the Court raised was
“Whether reservation of land for “future planning” amounts to utilization within the meaning of the said provision?”
The Court observed that the word 'utilize' in Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 connotes actual use of the land for the purpose for which it was acquired. It held that 'future planning' is contingent and does not result in present or tangible use of land.
“Mere earmarking of land or its retention for a prospective future project, in the absence of any concrete steps towards development or implementation, cannot, in law, be regarded as utilisation. Any contrary interpretation would defeat the very object of the provision, which mandates that land acquired for a specified public purpose be put to effective and timely use.”
It held that law does not permit for such acquisition for unlimited period for future use on vague grounds. It held that utilization must be real and visible and not mere on paper or reserved for future development in the grab of public purpose.
The Court held that under Article 14, the State must act in a fair, transparent and reasonable manner within defined limits of the Statutory framework. It held that retention of land for years without any real use or development defeats the purpose for granting powers of acquisition to the State.
It held that the land could have been restored by the State Government under Section 17 in 2023 even though possession was taken on paper in 2009.
Further, the Court held that auction proceedings during the pendency of writ petition were illegal and arbitrary as the Raebareli Development Authority had whimsically changed the land use and arbitrarily fixed the price of the land without applying the correct commercial rates applicable to the land. Accordingly, the consequential allotment by auction was vitiated and set aside.
“What reflects from these circumstances is that the timing and manner in which the petitioner's land alone was carved out and immediately put to auction lends credence to the contention of the petitioner that such action was undertaken with a view to defeat his pending claim for release of unutilised land and to render the writ petition infructuous. Such belated steps, initiated only after the filing of the writ petition and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged non-utilisation, cannot be regarded as bona fide utilisation for the declared public purpose and are, therefore, open to judicial scrutiny.”
Noting that the land was in possession of the petitioner till 2023, his plot was selectively taken possession of and auctioned after filing of the writ petition and that 80% compensation was not paid as per Section 17(3-A) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, it was held that there was violation of Article 14 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The Court directed setting aside of the auction proceedings as well as the acquisition proceedings. It directed restoration of the land to the petitioner. Balancing equity, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount as per Section 17 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 for restoration.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Title: Mata Baksh Singh v. State of U.P. through Secy Nagar Vikas Department and 3 Others