SYED MAQBOOL ALI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 04-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2011] 4 S.C.R. 238 
SYED MAQBOOL ALI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2913-2914 of 2011) 
APRIL 04, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 18 - Acquisition of lands 
for construction of road - Payment of compensation to certain 
C land owners - Appellant's case that his land was taken over 
without acquisition - Writ petition by the appellant almost two 
decades after the dispossession seeking direction for 
acquisition and payment of compensation - Dismissed by the 
High Court holding that the remedy lies u/s. 18 - Held: Not 
D justified - Application seeking reference to court uls. 18 would 
lie only where the land-holder is aggrieved by the award made 
by the Land Acquisition Collector in regard to land acqutred 
under the Act - Application uls. 18 cannot be filed in regard 
to a land which was not acquired at all - Remedy of a land 
E holder whose land is taken without acquisition is either to file 
a civil suit for recovery of possession and/or for 
compensation, or approach the High Court by filing a wfit 
petition, if the action can be shown to be arbitrary, irrational, 
unreasonable, biased, malafide or without the authority of law, 
F and seek a direction that the land should be acquired in a 
manner known to law - When a writ petitioner makes out a 
case for invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 
226 of the Constitution, the High Court would not relegate him 
to the alternative remedy of a civil court, merely because the 
G matter may involve an incidental examination of disputed 
questions of facts - High Court would see whether the person 
is seeking remedy in a matter which is a civil dispute or the 
matter relates to a dispute having a public law element or 
violation of any fundamental right or to any arbitrary and high-
H 
238 
SYED MAQBOOL ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR 
239 
PRADESH & ANR. 
handed action - Also, belated writ petitions, without proper A 
explanation for the delay, are liable to be dismissed - High 
Courts should also be cautious in entertaining such writ 
petitions - However, on facts, the High Court did not examine 
any of the relevant questions - Writ petition was dismissed 
after a pendency for seven years by a short order on a 
B 
baseless assumption about the existence of a non-existent 
alternative remedy - Thus, matter remitted to the High Court 
for consideration afresh - Delay/laches - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Article 226. 
ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee C 
Corporationof India Ltd 2004(3) SCC 553; Kisan Sahkari 
Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers 2008(12) SCC 500 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (3) sec 553 
2008 (12) sec 500 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
Para 6 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
E 
2913-2914 of 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.7.2007 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. No. 11212 of 2000 
and order dated 22.2.2008 in Review Application No. 189319 
of 2007 in W.P. No. 11212 of 2000. 
F 
Tameem Hashmi, Promila for the Appellant. 
Shobha Dikshit, Shalini Kumar, Pardeep Misra for the 
Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
ORDER 
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Certain lands in village Sarai Badli and lbrahimpur, 
Danda, Pargana Kora, District Fatehpur, UP, were acquired 
B for construction of a six Kilometre road from Jahanabad to Garhi 
Jafraganj in the year 1982 and compensation was paid to the 
land owners in the year 1983. 
3. In the year 1996, the appellant submitted a complaint 
c to the Lokayukta alleging that his plots (bearing No.87/5, 88, 
90, and 232 in Sarai Badli and plot No.580/5 and 602/1 in 
lbrahimpur Danda) were included in the said acquisition; that 
in 1995 when he got his other lands measured, he found that 
his plots bearing Nos.27, 57, 58, 450, 451 and 452 (new 
0 numbers 103, 90, 93/1, 232/2, 231/2 and 229/5) measuring 
0.7068 Hectare had been illegally and unauthorisedly used for 
constructing the road. On enquiry by the Lok Ayukta, the Addi. 
District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) informed that there was 
a possibility of the acquired lands being left out and the road 
E being constructed in the adjoining lands which were not 
acquired. On the other hand, the concerned Executive 
Engineer, PWD, informed the Lok Ayukta that the Khasra 
numbers in respect of which the appellant alleged 
encroachment and 

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