JASVEER SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 01-05-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 921 
JASVEER SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3790 of 2017) 
A 
MAYOl,2017 
B 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act,. 1894 - Award of compensat.lon -
Challenged - In the instant case, appellants were paid compensation 
and possession was duly taken - On reference. higher compensation 
C 
was awarded which decision attained finality - Thereafter appellant 
challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing writ petition before 
High Court which was held barred by delay and !aches against 
which SLP was also dismissed by Supreme ,Court - Writ petition 
seeking quashing of acquisition proceedings - High Court dismissed 
same - On appeal held: The fact remained that the challenge of the D 
appellants was barred by /aches and the said finding did not suffer 
from any infirmity - Even if the appellants were permitted to lay a 
fresh chc:llenge, they were required to overcome this legal bar which 
the appellants were not able to overcome. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The grievance of the appellants against acquisition 
proceedings on the ground that the award was not a valid award 
was rejected and SLP was dismissed by this Court but permitting 
E 
a fresh challenge. The fact-remains that the challenge of the 
appellants is barred by !aches and the said finding does not suffer· F 
from any infirmity. There was no J;)rror in the view taken by the 
High Court. [Paras 8, 9)[925-F-G; 926-A] 
Ajlatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 1 SCR 802 
: (197S) 4 SCC 285; Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State 
of Rajasthan (2008) 2 SCR 521 : (2008) 4 SCC 695; 
Sc.waran Lata v. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCR 40 : 
(2010) 4 SCC 532; Banda Development Authority, 
Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal [2011) 7 SCR 435 : (2011) 
5 SCC 394; Royal Orchid Hotel v. G. Tayarama Reddy 
[2011) 11 SCR 701: (2011) 10 SCC 608 - referred to. 
921 
G 
H 
922 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 
Case Law Reference 
[1975] 1 SCR 802 
referred to 
Para3 
[2008] 2 SCR 521 
referred to 
Para3 
[2010] 4 SCR 40 
referred to 
Para3 
(2011] 7 SCR 435 
referred to 
Para3 
[2011] 11 SCR 701 
referred to 
Para3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3790 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.05.2015 of the High Court 
ofJucticature at Allahabad in Writ C No. 59918 of2014 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 3787 and3786 of2017. 
Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Jayant Bhushan, Ashok Kumar Singh, 
Kartik Seth, Santwanu Singh, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
P. S. Patwalia, ASG, P. N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., C. D. Singh, 
Ms. Shivali Chaudhary, Avi Pandey, Amit Sharma, Dhurv Sheoron, 
E Ms. AlkaAggarwal, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Rahul 
Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. l. These appeals have been 
prefeued against the Order of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C. 
F No. 59918 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the appellants for quashing 
the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 18th 
Augu~t 1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
The acquisition was "for the construction ofNew Broad Gauge Railway 
Line between Rampur and Haldwani" in the District ofRampur. Urgency 
G clause was invoked. Possession of the land was taken on 19th September, 
1986.· The award was made on 22nd September, 1986. The appellants 
preferred reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation 
which was decided vide Award dated 7th December, 1988 by the District 
Judge, Rampur. First appeals against the said award were decided by 
the High Court on 29th January, 2004. This Court vide order dated 12th 
H 
JASVEER SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
923 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
September, 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5714-15 of2005 remanded the 
A 
matters to the High Court having regard to the grievance of the appellant 
against denial of statutory benefits. · 
2. On 19th December, 2005 the appellants filed a writ petition 
before the High Court seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings 
which was decided by the High Court on 3rd December, 20 l 0 directing 
B 
redetennination of compensation. The said order was set aside by this 
Court on 16th October, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.7535 of 2012. It was 
observed that : 
"After considering the pros and cons, without entering into 
serious controversies and making any comment on the merit C 
of the case, we are of the considered opinion that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.