Supreme Court quashes land acquisition due to lack of notice: U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Chandra Shekhar (2024) INSC 210

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 210

Judges: Surya Kant, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a land acquisition be deemed invalid if the affected landowners were not given a chance to raise objections? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case involving the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. The Court examined whether the Parishad followed proper procedure when acquiring land for a housing scheme. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, before acquiring private land. This case was decided by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, with the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (the Board) initiated a land acquisition process for its Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna in Lucknow. The Board issued a public notice on July 17, 2004, outlining the scheme and inviting objections. However, Khasra No. 673, the land in dispute, was not mentioned in the notice. The respondents, Chandra Shekhar and others, claimed that Khasra Nos. 672 and 673 were mutated in their favor on October 10, 1999. Later, the revenue records showed that the ownership of Khasra No. 673 was changed in favor of Chandrika and others on August 13, 2003, and February 9, 2004. The respondents alleged that these changes were fraudulent and made without following due procedure. The Board argued that it served notice to Guruprasad, who was the recorded tenure holder at the time of the notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, and was not obligated to serve notice to the respondents.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, quashed the acquisition of Khasra No. 673, holding that the respondents were not given an opportunity to submit objections as required under Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The High Court also noted the suspicious manner in which the revenue records were altered in favor of Chandrika and others. The U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, particularly Sections 28, 29, 30, 32 and 55.

✓ Section 28 of the 1965 Act mandates that when a housing or improvement scheme is framed, the Board must publish a notice detailing the scheme’s boundaries, the land to be acquired, and the deadline for objections. The notice must be published weekly for three consecutive weeks in the Gazette and two daily newspapers circulating in the area, one of which must be a Hindi newspaper.

✓ Section 29 of the 1965 Act requires the Board to serve a notice in the prescribed manner to the persons or classes of persons affected by the scheme.

✓ Section 30 of the 1965 Act allows individuals served with a notice under Section 29 to file written objections to the Board against the scheme or proposed acquisition.

✓ Section 32 of the 1965 Act states that after considering objections and obtaining prior sanction from the State Government, the scheme shall be notified and come into force.

✓ Section 55 of the 1965 Act empowers the Board to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in Uttar Pradesh, for the purposes of the Act. It states:

“55. Power to acquire land .­ (1) Any land or any interest therein required by the Board for any of the purposes of this Act, may be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. I of 1894), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, which for this purpose shall be subject to the modification specified in the Schedule to this Act.”

The Supreme Court also considered the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which repealed the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Arguments

Appellant (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad) Arguments:

• The Board contended that it had complied with the requirements of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.
• The Board argued that it was not obligated to serve individual notices to the respondents because their names were not recorded as tenure holders in the revenue records immediately before the issuance of the notification under Section 28 of the 1965 Act.
• The Board claimed that it had served notice to Guruprasad, who was recorded as the tenure holder at the relevant time.

Respondents (Chandra Shekhar and Ors.) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that Khasra Nos. 672 and 673 were mutated in their favor on October 10, 1999, and that they were the rightful owners of the land.
• They contended that the subsequent changes in the revenue records, which showed Chandrika and others as the owners, were fraudulent.
• The respondents claimed that they were not given an opportunity to object to the acquisition, which violated their right to be heard.
• They asserted that the lack of individual notice and the omission of Khasra No. 673 from the public notice invalidated the acquisition process.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents innovatively argued that the fraudulent alteration of revenue records should not deprive them of their right to be heard, highlighting the importance of substance over form in land acquisition proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

✓ Whether the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 was valid, given that the respondents were not served with individual notices and the land was not specifically mentioned in the public notice.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

✓ Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: This section outlines the procedure for publishing a notice when a housing or improvement scheme is framed, including details of the land to be acquired and the deadline for objections.

✓ Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: This section mandates the service of notice to affected persons or classes of persons in the prescribed manner.

✓ Section 30 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: This section allows persons served with notice under Section 29 to file objections to the Board.

✓ Section 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: This section states that after considering objections and obtaining prior sanction from the State Government, the scheme shall be notified and come into force.

✓ Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965: This section empowers the Board to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in Uttar Pradesh.

✓ Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the determination of compensation for land acquired under the 2013 Act.

Table of Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court interpreted Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 to require that the public notice should explicitly mention the land to be acquired. The omission of Khasra No. 673 was a critical procedural flaw.

✓ The Court interpreted Section 29 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 to mandate that individual notices must be served to the affected parties, especially when there is a dispute over the ownership of the land.

✓ The Court held that the respondents were denied a valuable right to object to the acquisition under Section 30 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.

✓ The Court held that the scheme shall be notified and come into force under Section 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, only after considering objections and obtaining prior sanction from the State Government.

✓ The Court noted that the compensation for the acquired land was required to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as per Section 55 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, but held that the compensation should be assessed under the 2013 Act, as the 1894 Act was repealed.

✓ The Court directed that the compensation should be assessed in accordance with Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

✓ Procedural Fairness: The Court emphasized the importance of following due procedure in land acquisition cases, particularly the requirement to provide notice to affected parties.

✓ Right to be Heard: The Court highlighted the fundamental principle of natural justice that individuals should have the opportunity to be heard before their property is acquired.

✓ Transparency: The Court noted the suspicious manner in which the revenue records were altered and emphasized the need for transparency in land acquisition proceedings.

✓ Compensation: The Court ensured that the respondents would receive fair compensation for their land, as per the provisions of the 2013 Act.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual irregularities in the case, particularly the omission of Khasra No. 673 from the public notice and the fraudulent alteration of revenue records. However, the legal principles of natural justice and procedural fairness also played a significant role in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the Board had served notice to the recorded tenure holder, but rejected it. The Court emphasized that the true owners of the land, who were the respondents, were not given an opportunity to object to the acquisition. The Court held that the omission of Khasra No. 673 from the public notice and the failure to serve individual notices to the respondents were critical procedural flaws that invalidated the acquisition.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 was correct. The Court stated:

“in the absence of any public or individual notice proposing to acquire Khasra No. 673, the observations made by the High Court to the extent that the respondents have been denied an effective opportunity to submit objections to oppose the acquisition in question, appears to be correct and based upon the record.”

The Court also noted that:

“the acquisition process qua Khasra No.673 stands vitiated on account of non­compliance with the prescribed procedure, does not call for any interference.”

Additionally, the Court stated:

“the tenure­holders/owners of Khasra No.673, which was still under the acquisition process when 2013 Act came into force, shall be entitled to be paid compensation in accordance with Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.”

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings must strictly adhere to the prescribed legal procedures.
• Public notices must clearly specify the land to be acquired.
• Individual notices must be served to all affected parties, especially when there are disputes over land ownership.
• The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice that must be upheld in land acquisition cases.
• Compensation for acquired land must be assessed in accordance with the applicable laws, which is the 2013 Act in this case.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

✓ The appropriate Government is directed to dispense with the procedure contemplated under Chapter II of the 2013 Act.

✓ The Prescribed Authority is permitted to accord an opportunity to submit objections under Section 15 of the 2013 Act and, thereafter, pass an award as per Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.

✓ The Prescribed Authority/Collector shall give notice to the respondents as well as to other persons who claim interest in Khasra Nos. 672 and 673, within a period of six weeks.

✓ The objections, if any, shall be filed within four weeks and on consideration of such objections, the Collector shall be obligated to pass an award on or before 30.06.2024.

✓ The awarded amount shall be kept in a nationalized bank in the FDR where it can fetch the maximum rate of interest.

✓ The FDR shall be renewed from time to time till the title dispute between the respondents and other claimants is resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

✓ The appellant-Board shall release the compensation to the person found entitled to, as early as possible but not later than four weeks after the final adjudication of the title dispute.

✓ The parties shall maintain status quo regarding the nature of the land, creation of third-party rights, or any encumbrance over the subject land until the award is passed.

✓ On the passing of the award and deposit of the compensation amount, the appellant-Board shall be at liberty to utilize the said land for the notified Scheme and/or for any other public purpose in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the acquisition of land without proper notice to the affected parties, especially when there is a dispute over ownership, is invalid. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in land acquisition proceedings. The court also clarified that compensation for land acquired under the 1965 Act, where the acquisition process was not completed before the 2013 Act came into force, must be assessed as per the 2013 Act. This is a change from the previous position where the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would have applied.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, quashing the acquisition of Khasra No. 673 due to the lack of proper notice to the affected landowners. The Court emphasized the importance of following due procedure and respecting the right to be heard in land acquisition cases. The Court directed that the respondents be compensated under the 2013 Act and that a thorough inquiry be conducted into the fraudulent alteration of revenue records. This judgment reinforces the principles of fairness and transparency in land acquisition proceedings.