LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.GOPAL DAS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus GOPAL DAS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1133 · Decided: 24-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
v.
GOPAL DAS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5820 of 2019)
JULY 24, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
– s. 17 proviso – Release of land from acquisition from State
Government – Restoration order in favour of respondents as also
order of payment of development fee – Set aside by the High Court
– On appeal, held: Findings of the High Court that the land in
question or the vicinity has not been developed is not the correct
reading of the order passed as it has been clearly stated that 97.1%
of the land acquired has been developed – Development has to be
considered with respect to land acquired – Appellants categorically
stated that they have constructed road, provided electricity, water
and laid sewer lines and, thus, the respondents cannot avoid payment
of development charges while seeking restoration of land – Judgment
passed by the High Court setting aside the claim of development
charges not sustainable and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per the averments made in the counter affidavit
filed before the High Court and also in the impugned order, it is
stated that 97.1% of the total land acquired is planned land. Small
portion of 19 Bighas including the land of the respondents has
not been planned for the reason that there were buildings on
such area. Therefore, when the appellants state that the land of
the respondents has not been planned or allotted is in the context
that the area has not been plotted. It does not mean that the
appellants have not carried out any development on the land in
question. It is not some part of the land acquired is required to
be taken into consideration, to find out as to whether any
development has been carried out in the land acquired. The
findings of the High Court that the land in question or the vicinity
has not been developed is not the correct reading of the impugned
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1133
1133
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
order passed as it has been clearly stated that 97.1% of the land
acquired has been developed. The development is to be examined
in respect of the land acquired. It is categorical stand of the
appellants that they have constructed road, provided electricity,
water and laid sewer lines and, thus, the respondents cannot avoid
payment of development charges while seeking restoration of
land in terms of s. 17 of the Act. The judgment passed by the
High Court setting aside the claim of development charges is
not sustainable. The said finding is set aside. The order quantifying
the development charges of Rs.1,57,22,056/- was raised without
giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondents.
Consequently, the demand letter/order is set aside with liberty
to the appellants to communicate the amount incurred on
acquisition and development charges in accordance with law. It
is open to the respondents to seek remedy, if any, under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in accordance with
law. [Para 9-11] [1138-G-H; 1139-A-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5820
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2014 of the High Court
of  Judicature at  Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 7782
(M/B) of 2011
Abhisth Kumar, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, V. K. Garg, Sr. Adv., Kamlendra
Mishra, Rajiv Dubey, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi,  Ms. Noopur Dubey,
Neeraj Sharma, Vyom Raghuvanshi, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.  1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-Lucknow Development Authority1 is aggrieved
against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court on January 15, 2014 whereby the
order dated July 29, 2011 passed by LDA was quashed.  The appellants
were also made liable to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- with the direction to
1for short,  ‘LDA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
recover the costs from the authorities who have been instrumental in
passing the impugned order.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are that LDA acquired
total land measuring 168.592 hectares (666 Bigha, 7 Biswa, 8 Biswansi,
8 Kachwansi) vide notification dated November 12, 1981 under Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of Sitapur Road
City Extension Scheme for r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.