SMT. SNEH PRABHA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 264 · Decided: 15-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SNEH PRABHA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 15, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Section 4( 1) 
Land Acquisition-Issue of Land Policy by State-Benefits under given 
c only to person whose land was acquired-Person musr be owner on the date 
of publication of notification for acquisition of land-Appellant purchasing 
land after publication of notificatiort-Not entitled to benefits of Land Policy. 
D 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14. 
Land Acquisition Proceedings-Issue of Land Policy by State-Benefit 
of Policy-Denial of-To persons who purchased land after publication of 
notification for acquisition-Said benefit given to three co-owners as a special 
case-Denial thereof to appellant-Held : does not amount to invidious 
discrimination-Equality clause does not extend to perpetuate wrong. 
The respondent got published in the State Gazette a notification 
issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - acquiring 
land for planned improvement by the Improvement Trust. The appellant 
had purchased a piece of land after the issue of the said notification from 
the erstwhile owner of the land. 
The respondent issued what is known as "Land Policy" in which it 
was stated that the lands falling within the limits of the Municipality may 
be acquired in the first instance, under the Act; that the Trust should make 
external development of the entire area and ?ko internal development in 
certain categories of cases the details whereof were mentioned in the 
G Schedule appended thereto and directed to lease out the plotted area to 
the persons from whom the land was acquired by charging premium which 
shall be equal to the compensation payable for the acquisition plus the 
cost of both external and internal development. The lessee was given the 
right to sub-lease the plot and thereby earn profits on their lands. They 
H divided the land owners into three categories, viz., (1) those who held an 
264 
SNEH PRABHA v. STATE 
265 
area of less than 2 acres of land, (2) those who held an area of more than A 
2 acres but less than 20 acres of land, and (3) those who held an area of 
20 or more acres of land, at one place. It was stated that "those in category 
No. (2) may be given an option either to accept cash compen!>ation for their 
land under the Land Acquisition Act or to get back 40% of their land as 
developed plotted area after paying the cost of external and internal B 
development. In the latter case, the premium will be compensation payable 
for the land". 
Arter the policy was issued, the respondent issued two Government 
Orders providing guidelines for implementation of the Land Policy. The 
first Government Order indicated in paragraph 2 that the persons who 
had purchased the land which would fall under the notification, after the 
publication of the notification for the acquisition of land under the Act, 
may not be given any benefit under the Land Policy. Paragraph 3 provided 
that the benefit of the Land Policy may also not be given to the persons 
c 
who although had submitted their applications for the benefits under the D 
Land Policy well before the prescribed date but had filed their suits in the 
court for stay orders against the acquisition of land and had obtained the 
orders of the Courts to stop the activities of the acquisition of land. 
In paragraph 2 of the second Government Order it was stated that 
those persons may be given the benefit of the land policy who had applied E 
within time for taking benefit of land policy aad in whose cases orders had 
been passed to give benefit of the land policy and with whom agreements 
had been entered into, although they had purchased the land after the 
issue of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
F 
The appellant had applied for allotment of the plot and also got 
herself registered with the Trust seeking allotment of the land under the 
Land Policy. The appellant also, after being informed of the need to 
redeposit the compensation amount she received from the Land Acquisi-
tion Officer, deposited the same with the Trust. The appellant claimed that 
she was allotted 7957 square yards of land but when she sought registra-
G 
tion of the lease deed in her favour she was informed to supply a copy of 
the sale deed of the land purchased by her. The Trust informed her that 
since she had purchased the land after notification under section 4(1) had 
already been

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