MAHESH CHANDRA BANERJI versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 07-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 8 S.C.R. 19 
MAHESH CHANDRA BANERJI 
V. 
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4970 of 2010) 
JULY 07, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition- U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 
(U.P. Act No.1 of 1968) - ss.28 and 32(i) - Acquisition for 
purpose of Development Scheme -
Respondent no. 1-
C 
Parishad conducted auction in respect of the lands acquired 
- Respondent no. 6 became successful bidder in respect of 
a portion of the acquired lands which had earlier belonged to 
the appellant's family and a sale deed was a/so executed in 
his favour - Inquiry conducted pursuant to representation 
D 
made by appellants, and Additional District Magistrate 
reported that the house of appellants and the land attached 
to it had been exempted from the acquisition - Possession 
of the lands sold in auction not handed over to Respondent 
no. 6 -
Dispute as regards the extent to which land belonging 
E 
to appellant's family had been excluded from ambit of 
acquisition - Writ petition filed by respondent no. 6 - Appeal 
against order passed by High Court - Held: The writ court is 
not to decide such disputed questions of fact - All such 
questions can either be decided in a properly instituted suit 
F 
or by the Collector on a proper inquiry being conducted - In 
order to put a quietus to the dispute, District Magistrate 
directed to conduct fresh inquiry upon giving the affected 
parties an opportunity of placing their respective cases -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
· 
Respondent no.1-Parishad conducted auction in 
respect of lands acquired under a Development Scheme 
(Yojana No.7). Respondent no.6 became successful 
19 
G 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 8 S.C.R. 
A bidder in respect of a portion of the acquired lands which 
had earlier belonged to the appellant's family and a sale 
deed was also executed in his favour. 
Meanwhile, the appellants made a representation to 
8 the Housing Commissioner, praying for release of their 
land, on which inquiry was conducted and the Additional 
District Magistrate reported that the house of the 
appellants and the land attached to it had been exempted 
from acquisition. 
c 
While on one hand, possession of the laads sold in 
auction was not handed over to respondent no.6, on the 
other hand, the report of the Additional District Magistrate 
was also not given proper consideration for release of the 
lands belonging to appellant's family which Respondent 
D no.1-Parishad purportedly took possession of without 
the same having been acquired. 
Respondent no.6 filed a writ petition. The High Court 
directed grant of possession of the lands in dispute to 
E Respondent No.6 in the event it deposited the entire 
outstanding dues, excluding the penal interest. The 
appellants filed application praying for recall of the said 
judgment which was dismissed. 
F 
Partly allowing the instant appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. The dispute in this case centers around the 
question as to whether barring 1-1-10 bighas of the lands 
comprising a part of the property belonging to the 
appellant's family, which had been excluded from the 
G acquisition, the remaining portion had also been acquired 
for the purpose of Yojana No.7 undertaken by the 
Respondent-Parishad. From the calculations as indicated 
in the report of the Executive Engineer, U.P. Housing 
H 
MAHESH CHANDRA BANERJI v. U.P. AVAS EVAM 
21 
VIKAS PARISHAD AND ORS. 
Development Board, only 1-1-10 bighas of land belonging 
A 
to the appellants had been excluded from the scope of 
the acquisition and as far as remaining lands are 
concerned, the same either fall within the 6.17 bighas 
possession whereof had already been taken, or the same 
fell outside the said area which did not form part of the 
B 
lands excluded from the ambit of the acquisition. In either 
case, the appellants have to be compensated for the said 
lands in respect whereof, according to the appellants, no 
compensation had either been assessed or awarded. The 
said conundrum still remains to be solved. No positive c 
finding has at all been arrived at in this regard by the 
acquiring authorities, nor even by the Collector while 
making his Award. There is, therefore, some justification 
in the submission that if the lands of the appellant's 
family, apart from the lands which had been excluded 
D 
from the acquisition, had actually been acquired for the 
purpose ofYojana No.7, the same had to be reflected in 
t

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