MAHADEO (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 08-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 2 S.C.R. 539 
MAHADEO (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2944 of 2013 etc.) 
APRIL 08, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
A 
B 
s.48 - Resolution by Development Authority to withdraw c 
acquisition in respect of a part of the land acquired - Held: 
Once the land is acquired and mandatory requirements are 
complied with including possession having been taken, the 
land vests in the State Government free from all 
encumbrances - Merely because some land was left at the 0 
relevant time, that does not give any right to the Authority to 
send proposal to the Government for release of the land in 
favour of the land owners. 
By Notification dated 27 .1.1990 issued u/s 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land admeasuring 246.931 
E 
acres was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of 
construction of residential/commercial buildings under 
Planned Development Scheme by the Meerut 
Development Authority (MDA). Declaration u/s 6 read with 
ss. 17(1) and (4) was made on 18.3.1990. Notice u/s 9 was 
F 
issued. Award was passed on 17.3.1992. By resolution 
dated 17.9.1997, the MDA decided to withdraw the 
acquisition of the land except 42.018 aces for which 
compensation had been paid.· However, the State 
Government decided not to accede to the decision of G 
MDA for de-requisition of the land. In the writ petitions, 
the High Court, inter alia, directed MDA to press its 
resolution dated 17 .9.1997 if it was not in need of the land 
so acquired. 
539 
H 
540 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is the settled proposition of law that 
once the land is acquired and mandatory requirements 
are complied with including possession having been 
8 
taken the land vests in the State Government free from 
all encumbrances. Even if some unutilised land remains, 
it cannot be re-conveyed or re-assigned to the erstwhile 
owner by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition 
Act. [para 16] [546-H; 547-A] 
C 
Govt. of A.P. and Anr. vs. V. Syed Akbar2004 (6) Suppl. 
SCR 208 = AIR 2005 SC 492; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. 
vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 =AIR 
1993 SC 2517 - relied on. 
0 
1.2 Indisputably, land in question was acquired by 
the State Government for the purpose of expansion of 
city i.e. construction of residential/commercial building 
under planned development scheme by the Meerut 
·Development Authority and that major portion of the land 
E has already been utilized by the Authority. Merely 
because some land was left at the relevant time, that does 
not give any right to the Authority to send proposal to the 
Government for release of the land in favour of the land 
owners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court 
F directing the Authority to press the Resolution are 
absolutely unwarranted in law. [para 18] [549-B-C] 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 208 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 
relied on 
relied on 
para 16 
para 17 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2944 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and order dated 09.04.2010 of the 
MAHADEO (D) THROUGH LRS & ORS. v. STATE OF 541 
U. P. & ORS. 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMRA No. 44945 of A 
2010 in CMWP No. 21407 of 2002. 
wm-t 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2945, 2946 and 2947 of 2013. 
Vijay Hansaria, Sanjay Sarin, Mahesh Singh, Gagan Deep 
8 
Kaur, Manjusha Wadhwa for the Appellants. 
L. Nageswara Rao, lrshad Ahmad, AAG, Abhisth Kumar, 
Raman Yadav, Vishwajit Singh, Abhindra Maheswari, Pankaj 
. Singh, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, M.P. Shorawala, Jyoti c 
Saxena, N.M. Popli, Bhagmal Singh, Tajendra Kaur, Anurag, · 
B. Sunita Rao, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Harsh 
Vardhan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 
D 
2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 
2.12.2009 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 7748 of 2002 and 21407 
E 
of 2002 whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein 
were disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 4 - Meerut 
Development Authority to press its resolution dated 17.09.1997 
if the said Authority is not in need of the land so acquired and 
the orders dated 9.4.2010 whereby the review applications filed 
against the orders dated 2.12.2009 in the said writ petitions 
were rejected. 
3. The facts of the case li

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