LexSAVITRI DEVI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 7 S.C.R. 512 SAVITRI DEVI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4506of2015 etc.) May 14, 2015. [H.L. DATTU, CJI, A.K. SIKRI AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] c Land Acquisition Act, 1894- s. 5A and 17(1) and (4) - Land acquisition by Notification dated 12.03.2008-lnvoking urgency provisions dispensing with the right of objection uls. 5A - Challenged by the /and-owners - Some Land-owners a/so challenged the Notifications of the years 1979or1980 D - High Court dismissed the cases challenging the Notifications of 197911980 as barred by limitation- However other cases were not dismissed on the ground of delay and /aches- On merit High Court held that invocation of urgency clause was unwarranted- But in view of the fact that substantial E development work had been carried out, third party interest was created, compensation was also paid, etc., High Court in order to balance the equities, instead of quashing the notification, enhanced the provisional compensation to 64. 7% and directed allotment of developed abadi Land to F the extent of 10% of the acquired land- However, notification in respect of three villages was quashed where no development work had been carried out-Appeal of the Land- holders - Held: In the facts of the case, the cases may not have been maintainable on the ground of delay and /aches G - But the High Court had gone an extra.mile in finding the solutions and balancing the equities in a manner 'tlhich was favourable to the /and-owners by adequately compensating them - The directions of High Court are given in unique and H 512 SAVITRI DEVI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 513 peculiar circumstances and hence would not form precedent A - Interference u/Art. 136 not warranted in the present cases. ~ - Disposing of the appeals and the contempt petitions, the Court. , ) HELD: 1. The appellants were not aggrieved by the B acquisition per se in the manner it was done by the respondents. As per their own case, they became aggrieved only when they found that land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired namely c industrial development, but a large portion thereof was sought to be given away to the builders for development of the land as residential. The High Court, acc~pted such a plea of the land owners on the ground of'l~ches and delay. [Para 35) [558-C-E] ·~ D Nand Kishore Gupta and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors. 2010 (11 ) SCR 356 = (2010) 10 SCC 282 - referred to. 2. After the land was acquired, which was of very large quantity and in big chunks, further steps were taken E by passing the award, taking possession and paying compensation. In many cases, actual possession was taken and in rest of the cases, paper possession was taken where because of the land under Abadi, actual F possession could not be taken on spot immediately. Where possession was taken, these land owners/ appellants even received compensation. All these petitions have been filed only thereafter which may not be maintainable stricto sensu. Looking into the matter G from the aforesaid prospective, the plea that giving away of the land by allotment to the private developers for construction of residential units gave them ·the fresh cause of action, gets dented to a great extent. [Paras 37, 38] [560-A-F] H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. 197 4 AIR 2077 = 1975 (1) SCR 802 - followed . Murari and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 ( 8 ) Suppl. SCR 313 = 1997 ( 1 ) SCC 15; Ravi Khullar and Anr. B v. Union of India and Ors. 2007 (4) SCR 598 = 2007 (5) SCC 231; Anand Singh and Anr. v. State of U .P. and Ors. 201 O (9 ) SCR 133 = 2010 (11) SCC 242- relied on. 3. Though the High Court has not dismissed the writ c petitions filed by the appellants on the ground of delay and laches accepting the plea of the appellants that they felt aggrieved on coming to know that the land was sought to be given to the private persons for development. In this way, discretion is exercised by the D High Court in entertaining the writ petitions on merits. Since such a discretion is exercised, this Court would not interfere with that discretion, more so, when a very fair stand is taken by the NOi DA Authority. It was equally possible to dismiss these writ petitions as the same were E filed belatedly after passing of the award and when in most of the cases, possession was taken and compensat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.