Concluded Land Acquisition Proceedings Upheld By SC Cannot Be Revived Or Nullified U/S 24(2) Of Land Acquisition Act: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that land acquisition proceedings which have already been concluded and have been upheld by the Supreme Court are not revived by Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.While dealing with an acquisition of 1990 which had been upheld by the Apex Court in 2013, the bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Vinod Diwakar held“Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not apply to revive or nullify such concluded acquisition proceedings, which have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.”In 1990, State Government of Uttar Pradesh proposed to acquire 246.931 acres of land situated in District Meerut for a development scheme, named 'Ganga Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana'. Due to the urgent need for acquisition, it invoked Section 17(1) and Section 17(4) of the 1894 Act and inquiry under Section 5 was dispensed with. Some tenure holders submitted there objections. 80% of 223 tenure holders accepted the compensation. However, some tenure holders, including petitioner's ancestors challenged the compensation under Section 84 of the Act. In 1997, a resolution was passed rescinding the acquisitions except for a certain portion, however this decision was recalled in 2002. Against the 2002 proposal, writ petitions were filed before the High Court wherein the Meerut Development Authority (MDA) was directed to act upon the 1997 order. The civil appeals against this order was dismissed by the Supreme Court holding that the land had been vested in the State free from all encumbrances since the urgency clause had been invoked and could not be released subsequently. Thereafter, notifications dated 22.12.2016 and 10.03.2017 were issued by the State Government de-notifying certain plots. Petitioner again approached the High Court seeking writ of mandamus to return and re-convey their respect lands and also to de-notify the lands as the acquisition of 1990 had elapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.The Court observed that while the petitioners contended that the possession had never been taken by the authorities, the authorities placed documents on record to show that possession was taken in 2002 and compensation was deposited with the Court in 2007. It also observed that 80% of the tenure holders had accepted compensation. Accordingly, the Court held that the petition was barred by Constructive res judicata. “…as held by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra), where land owners seek reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, they cannot turn around and contend that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2). Nobody is permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Hence, the present petition is barred both on grounds of constructive res judicata and on the petitioners' own conduct and selection of remedy.”Relying on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others, the Court observed that both conditions regarding possession being taken and compensation being deposited were met in this case. It held that merely because petitioner might still be in possession of some part when the symbolic possession had been taken by the authorities and substantial development had been carried out, cannot be the basis to say that possession had been not taken as per law. “We find that once the land is acquired and the mandatory requirements are complied with, including possession having been taken, the land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. A categorical finding has also been recorded that even if some land remains unutilized, it would not be reconveyed or reassigned to the erstwhile owner by invoking the provisions of the Act, 1894, in view of the settled law laid down in Government of A.P. & Another vs. Syed Akbar.”Observing that the Supreme Court had held that the land vested with the Government free from all encumbrances and had rejected the relief for de-notifying the land, the Court held that “By no stretch of imagination can it be presumed that once the acquisition was approved by the Supreme Court, the State Government would thereafter have any discretion to de-notify the land which is already acquired and vested in the State free from all encumbrances.”Holding that the claim of the petitioners was also barred by laches, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as barred by constructive res judicata along with delay/laches. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed. Case Title: Ashok Kumar And Another V. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 350 [WRIT - C No. - 20190 of 2024 ]Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 350Click Here To Read/Download Order

Concluded Land Acquisition Proceedings Upheld By SC Cannot Be Revived Or Nullified U/S 24(2) Of Land Acquisition Act: Allahabad HC

Upasna Agrawal

Tags