Supreme Court Denies Additional Land to Late Litigant Landowners in Land Acquisition Case

Date of the Judgment: 15 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 135

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can landowners who did not challenge the acquisition of their land at the time, claim the same benefits as those who did? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land acquisition in Uttar Pradesh. This case examines whether those who did not initially file writ petitions can later claim parity with those who did, specifically regarding allotment of developed land. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh, using powers under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issued notifications between 1976 and 2010 to acquire land in Noida and Greater Noida for “Planned Industrial Development.” The Greater Noida Industrial Authority was to execute this plan. After Section 4 notifications, declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published, and the government took possession using Section 17, the urgency provision of the Act. Some of the acquired land was then developed by the State/Authority.

Many landowners, approximately one hundred, were affected. Some filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the legality of the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These petitions, filed between 1976 and 2010, argued that there was no urgency under Section 17, that dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A was illegal, and that the acquisition was a colorable exercise of power, and mala fide.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad clubbed 471 writ petitions for an analogous hearing before a Full Bench due to conflicting views from two Division Benches. On 21.10.2011, the Full Bench disposed of the petitions, dividing them into groups based on villages. Some petitions were dismissed for delay. Others were disposed of with directions for enhanced compensation (64.70%) and allotment of developed abadi plots (10% of acquired land, max 2500 sq.m) for land where development had occurred. For three villages where no development had taken place, the High Court quashed the notifications and ordered land restoration.

The Supreme Court, on 14.05.2015, dismissed appeals by landowners and upheld the High Court’s judgment in Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21. The Court affirmed the benefits of increased compensation and land allotment but clarified that this was specific to the case and not a precedent for future cases.

The appellants, who had not previously filed writ petitions, filed new writ petitions on 15.02.2016, seeking the same benefits as those who had initially challenged the acquisition. The High Court dismissed these petitions, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Key provisions include:

• Section 4: This section empowers the government to issue notifications for land acquisition for public purposes.
• Section 6: Following the Section 4 notification, the government publishes a declaration stating that the land is required for a public purpose.
• Section 17: This section allows the government to take possession of land urgently, bypassing the inquiry under Section 5-A, in cases of urgency.
• Section 5-A: This section provides landowners the right to file objections against the acquisition.

These provisions are used to acquire land for public purposes, with mechanisms for compensation and, in some cases, urgent acquisition. The High Court’s judgment was based on its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for the issuance of writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purposes.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that since their lands were acquired in the same proceedings as those who received benefits in Gajraj & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., they should also receive the same benefits, specifically the allotment of developed abadi plots. They asserted that the order in Gajraj should apply to all landowners affected by the same acquisition.
• The appellants contended that the Authority had resolved to allot additional land to all landowners, regardless of whether they were original petitioners, and therefore, the High Court should have granted them relief.
• The appellants argued that they were similarly situated to the landowners who had received benefits and should not be deprived of the same.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the judgments in Gajraj and Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. were specifically for those who had filed writ petitions and civil appeals. The High Court had directed the Authority to decide whether to extend the benefits to others.
• The respondents stated that they had already implemented the direction to pay additional compensation (64.70%) to all landowners, including the appellants. However, the Authority was unable to allot additional plots due to a lack of available land.
• The respondents pointed out that even landowners who had won the allotment order had not received plots, and contempt petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court due to the non-availability of land.
• The respondents argued that the appellants had no legal right or factual basis to claim the relief and that the High Court had rightly denied it.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellants was that they were seeking parity with those who had litigated, even though they had not, relying on the fact that the acquisition was common.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

1. Whether the appellants (landowners) are entitled to claim the benefit of the judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Gajraj, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi, insofar as it relates to the allotment of additional abadi plots to the maximum of 2500 Sq.M.

The sub-issue was whether the appellants are entitled to claim additional abadi plot in lieu of their acquired land in terms of judgment dated 21.10.2011 passed in the case of Gajraj and Savitri Devi.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Gajraj & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.: The Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which initially granted the benefits of additional compensation and allotment of developed land to the writ petitioners.
• Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2015) 7 SCC 21: The Supreme Court’s judgment that upheld the High Court’s decision in Gajraj but clarified that it was specific to that case and not a precedent for future cases.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The statute under which the land was acquired.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The constitutional provision under which the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The constitutional provision relating to equality before the law.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Gajraj & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. to show that the High Court had specifically confined the benefit of additional abadi plot to the writ petitioners.
• The Court used Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2015) 7 SCC 21] to emphasize that the Supreme Court had upheld the High Court’s judgment but clarified that it was specific to that case and not a precedent for future cases.
• The Court noted that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not provide for grant of such reliefs to the landowners under the Act.
• The Court used Article 226 of the Constitution of India to show that the High Court had exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to grant relief in Gajraj.
• The Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to such cases and there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized that the appellants had no legal right or factual basis to claim the relief of additional developed abadi plots. The Court noted that the High Court in Gajraj had specifically confined the benefit to those who had filed writ petitions. The Court also highlighted that even those who had received orders for allotment of plots had not received them due to the non-availability of land. The Court also noted that the reliefs in the case of Gajraj were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions. The Court also observed that there is no basis for the appellants to press in service the principle underlined in Article 14 in such cases for the simple reason that firstly, Article 14 does not apply to such cases; and secondly, there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was that the benefit of additional abadi plots was specifically granted to the landowners who had filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition. The High Court had directed the Authority to decide whether to extend the benefit to others, and the Authority had declined to do so. The Court emphasized that the appellants had no legal right to claim the relief and that the principle of parity under Article 14 does not apply in this case as there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions. The Court also highlighted that even those who had received orders for allotment of plots had not received them due to the non-availability of land.

The Court stated: “In our view, the appellants have neither any legal right and nor any factual foundation to claim the relief of allotment of additional developed abadi plot. In order to claim any mandamus against the State for claiming such relief, it is necessary for the writ petitioners to plead and prove their legal right, which should be founded on undisputed facts against the State.”

The Court further noted: “Indeed, when the landowners, in whose favour the order was passed by the High Court for allotment of such plot, could not get the plot then, in such event, there arise no occasion for the appellants herein to claim such relief for want of any factual and legal basis in their favour.”

The Court also observed: “The reliefs in the case of Gajraj (supra) were granted by the High Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case at hand. They were confined only to the landowners, who had filed the writ petitions.”

The Court rejected the argument that Article 14 of the Constitution of India should apply, stating that there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions. The Court concluded that substantial justice had been done to all landowners, including the appellants, and that there was no basis for granting the additional relief.

Key Takeaways

• Timely Legal Action: Landowners must challenge acquisition proceedings in a timely manner to claim benefits. Those who do not participate in the initial litigation may not be able to claim the same benefits later.
• Limited Scope of Parity: The principle of parity does not automatically extend benefits to all similarly situated individuals. The court emphasized that the principle of parity under Article 14 does not apply in this case as there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions.
• Specific Nature of Court Orders: Court orders are often specific to the parties involved in the litigation. Benefits granted in one case may not automatically apply to others, even if they are similarly situated.
• Importance of Legal Rights: To claim relief, individuals must demonstrate a clear legal right founded on undisputed facts.

The decision underscores the importance of taking timely legal action and the limited scope of parity claims in land acquisition matters. It also highlights that court orders are often specific to the parties involved and should not be seen as a blanket grant of benefits to all similarly situated individuals.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that landowners who do not challenge land acquisition proceedings in a timely manner are not automatically entitled to the same benefits as those who do. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the benefit of additional abadi plots was specifically granted to the landowners who had filed writ petitions. The Court also clarified that the principle of parity under Article 14 does not apply in this case as there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions. This decision reinforces the importance of timely legal action and the limited scope of parity claims in land acquisition matters. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional developed abadi plots. The Court emphasized that the benefit was specifically for those who had filed writ petitions initially and that there was no legal or factual basis to extend the benefit to those who had not. This judgment underscores the importance of timely legal action and the limited scope of parity claims in land acquisition cases.

Category

• Land Acquisition
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  • Section 5-A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Constitution of India
  • Article 226, Constitution of India
  • Article 14, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether landowners who did not initially challenge land acquisition proceedings are entitled to the same benefits as those who did, specifically regarding the allotment of developed land.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the landowners who did not initially challenge the acquisition were not entitled to the same benefits as those who did. The Court emphasized that the benefit of additional abadi plots was specifically for those who had filed writ petitions initially.

Q: Why were some landowners denied the additional land?

A: They were denied because the High Court’s order in Gajraj specifically granted the benefit only to those who had filed writ petitions. The Authority was directed to decide on extending the benefit to others, and it declined to do so due to the non-availability of land.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment highlights the importance of taking timely legal action and the limited scope of parity claims in land acquisition matters. It also clarifies that court orders are often specific to the parties involved and should not be seen as a blanket grant of benefits to all similarly situated individuals.

Q: Can I claim the same benefits if my land was acquired similarly but I didn’t file a petition?

A: According to this judgment, you may not be automatically entitled to the same benefits if you did not participate in the initial litigation. The Court emphasized that the principle of parity under Article 14 does not apply in this case as there is no similarity between the case of those landowners, who filed the writ petitions and the present appellants, who did not file the writ petitions.