LexBRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 189 BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. ,~ v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 2011) FEBRUARY 23, 2011 B [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT. 1894: s. 5-A - Acquisition of land - Objections of land-owners c - Plea that no opportunity of hearing was given - Held: The original report placed before the Court indicates that not only was the hearing afforded, but a/f the objections were specifica/fy considered and decided. Land admeasuring 6.6 acres belonging to the D appellants was acquired pursuant to Notification dated 20.3.1991 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 and declaration was issued on 28.2.1992. The award had also been made. The writ petition filed by the land owners was dismissed by the High Court. E In the instant appeal filed by the land-owners it was contended that proceedings were vitiated inasmuch as no hearing was given to them before decididng their objections u/s 5-A of the Act. It was also submitted that possession of the lands had not been taken. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the original report produced before the Court shows that the objections raised by the land-owners were dealt with holding that there was no G question of any mala tides in the acquisition. It has also been held that the acquisition for the purpose of planned housing development was very much a public purpose. The acquisition has been justified on account of increase 189 H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A in the population and fast industrial development which required houses for the persons of middle income group and lower income group, and of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. All this could not have been possible unless the appellants were heard B and their objections were considered in detail. It is specifically mentioned in the report that the objectors have been heard. Once the original report suggests that the objectors were heard, it cannot be said that the appellants were not heard. It is, therefore, evident that not c only was the hearing afforded, but all the objections have been specifically considered and decided. [Para 4-5] [193-E-G; 194-A; 194-E] D Jayabheri Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2010 (5) SCC 590 - referred to. 1.2 As regards the affidavit of the lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellants in land acquisition proceedings, a perusal of the affidavit .shows that it is completely bereft of the dates and other details and, E therefore, is not found fit to be relied upon. [Para 6) [194- G] 2.1 So far as the plea that possession was not taken at all, is concerned, it is a question of fact as to whether the possession has been taken or not. However, the F respondents have produced the possession receipt, where it is suggested that the possession was taken by the officers after going on the spot. The Court is thoroughly convinced that not only the possession was taken, but there are activities going on at the behest of G the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. This is apart from the fact that this is a pure question of fact which has been answered by the High Court in no uncertain terms. The judgment of the High Court and the findings therein are confirmed. [para 7-8) [195-D; 196-B- H CJ - BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & 191 ORS. Ba/want Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwan & Ors. etc. A etc. (1975) Suppl. SCR 250 = 1976 (1) SCC 700; Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 2009 (10) SCC 501; Dahyabhai Ranchhoddas Dhobi & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (7) SCC 705 - referred to. B Case Law Reference: · .· 2010 (5) sec 590 referred to para 5 1975 Suppl. SCR 250 referred to para 5 c . 2009 (10) sec 501 referred to para 7 201 o (7) sec 105 · referred to para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2020of2011. D From the Judgment & Order dated 07.09.2007 of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 13734 of 1992. U.U. Lalit, Vikas Singh, Rajiv Dutta, Dinesh Dwivedi, E Saurabh Mishra, Sangram Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Surbhi Mehta, Abhinav Mukerji, M.P. Shorawala, Jyoti Saxena, Shashi Kiran, S.K. Dwivedi, T.N .. Singh, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the appearing parties. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave grante
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.