RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 20-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 422
422
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8819 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 20, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894– U.P. Land Acquisition
(determination of compensation and declaration of award by
agreement) Rules, 1997 – Payment of compensation – Classification
of landholders as Pushtaini or Gair-Pushtaini – Impermissibility of –
Held: Classification made by the GNOIDA authority for the purposes
of awarding differential compensation is bad in law – Land
Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and
uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners –
Classification made between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini
landowners is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Trust
case and Article 14 – Said classification made by the executive
actions is bad in law, and is liable to be set aside – However, since
the mischief lies only within the classification, it can be severed,
and the remaining part of the executive actions that set out to grant
compensation for the purpose of rehabilitation remains valid in law
– Impugned judgment passed by the Full Bench of the High Court
set aside – Appellants entitled to the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition
filed before the High Court – Constitution of India – Art.14.
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Reasonable Classification
Test, Wednesbury Principle and Proportionality Test – Discussed –
Administrative Law.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Whether the Appellants are bound by the
compensation as per the agreement under the Land Acquisition
rules, and have waived off their right to seek enhanced
compensation?
The Respondent Authority argued that since the agreement
was consented to, no challenge could exist in the Court. This
argument in the facts of the case, has been raised only to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
rejected. The issue involved in adjudication is not in respect of
an agreement entered into by the appellants. Similar agreements
were also entered into with the Authority by such identically
situated landholders who have been granted additional
compensation subsequent to the agreement by carving out a
distinction on the basis of period of residence/occupation of the
land which was acquired by creating an artificial classification of
‘Pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-Pushtaini’ landholders. Furthermore, since
the issue of additional compensation by making an artificial
classification of ‘pushtaini’ and ‘Gair-pushtani’ was not in existence
at the time of the agreement, there was no occasion to challenge
the same. Further, specifically in the context of the grant of ex-
gratia payment, it is to be noted that the said payment granted to
Pushtaini landowners through a separate notification, was
assessed, and given, after the agreement was signed by both,
Pushtaini and Gair-pushtaini Landowners. The Appellants herein,
under those circumstances, could not have challenged the
agreement vis a vis the exgratia payment on grounds of violation
of Article 14, when no such violation existed at the time of the
agreement. No man can be expected to predict a future violation
of their rights and file a pre-emptive appeal.The Appellants,
because of their signing of the agreement, have not forfeited their
right to seek revised compensation, because ,the cause of action
accrued to them much after entering into the agreement. The
issue no. 1 is answered accordingly in the negative and in favour
of the Appellants.[Paras 27-30][448-D-H; 449-A-B,D]
2.1 Whether the classification made by and executive fiat
between Pushtaini Landowners and Gair-pushtaini Landowners
for payment of compensation at different rates is liable to be struck
down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION TEST
For any classification to survive the test of Article 14, the
classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and it must
have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the
law. The object sought to be achieved must also be lawful, and if
the object of the law itself is found to be discriminatory, then
such discrimination must be struck down. [Para 33][451-C-D]
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
2.2 While prima facie, the classification and the object
sought to be achieved through the said classification seems
reas

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