U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ANR. versus NOOR MOHAMMAD & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1060 · Decided: 16-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1060
1060
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH
HOUSING COMMISSIONER & ANR.
v.
NOOR MOHAMMAD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8083 of 2011)
DECEMBER 16, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA  AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.48(1), 4, 6 – United Provinces
Town Improvement Act, 1919 – ss.36, 42 – Notification issued u/
s.48(1), 1894 Act for release of the land of the respondents-land
owners from acquisition – However, by another notification the
aforesaid notification was cancelled – Latter notification challenged
by land owners, set aside by High Court – On appeal, held: First
Notification was secured by the respondents by false representations
and by playing fraud – When the respondents wanted to ward off
the acquisition, they claimed that there were cemeteries of their
forefathers – However, after the first notification was issued they
started selling the land to third parties, who do not share the same
religious sentiments with the respondents – An order secured by
fraud and misrepresentation will not confer any vested right – Thus,
the land owners cannot pitch their claim either on the basis of vesting
or on the basis of Art.300A – They cannot be allowed to contend
that the land can be acquired only through a fresh process of
acquisition – Impugned orders of the High Court set aside – Writ
petitions filed by the respondents dismissed – Constitution of India
– Art.300A.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48(1) – Notification under, if
a quasi-judicial order – Held: No – Thus, the argument that the
Government cannot fall back upon s.21, General Clauses Act to
rescind an order u/s.48(1) is rejected – General Clauses Act – s.21
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 48(1) – Notification u/
s.4(1) vis-à-vis u/s.48(1) – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power to issue Notification would include
a power to rescind the Notification. This position was not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1061
contested by the respondents, when their attempts to have the
land released from acquisition, proved unsuccessful on earlier
occasions. As a matter of fact, on the application presented by
the respondents on 28.02.1983, the Government issued a letter
dated 30.01.1985 requesting the appellant-Parishad to initiate
necessary action for exemption of the land, subject to the condition
that the land owners will not sell the land. This condition was
stipulated in view of the fact that the request of the respondent
was based on religious sentiments due to the alleged existence
of cemeteries of about 20 of their forefathers on the acquired
land. But the proposal mooted by the State Government on
30.01.1985 was opposed by the Parishad on the ground that there
was no mention about any cemeteries, when the land owners filed
objections to the acquisition. In the light of such objections, the
Government issued proceedings dated 27.06.1985 withdrawing
the earlier proposal dated 30.01.1985. In a fresh representation
made on 29.05.1999 it was reiterated that there are cemeteries
and Mazaars of the forefathers of the land owners and that regular
religious programmes were being conducted in the acquired land.
It is on the basis of the said representation that the Notification
dated 7.04.2003 was issued under Section 48(1). [Paras 11,
14][1068-E-G; 1069-C-D]
1.2 The land owners were actually playing hide and seek
by pleading religious sentiments, leading to the issue of the
Notification dated 7.04.2003 under Section 48(1). The Notification
under Section 48(1) was invited by the land owners by making
false representations. The land owners have actually played fraud
upon the Government and secured the Notification dated
7.04.2003. Hence, they cannot be allowed to contend that the
land can be acquired only through a fresh process of acquisition.
The first Notification was secured by the respondents by false
representations and by playing fraud. When the respondents
wanted to ward off the acquisition, they claimed that there were
cemeteries of their forefathers, but after the first notification was
issued, they started selling the land to third parties, who cannot
and do not share the same religious sentiments with the
respondents. The second Notification dated 15.09.2005 which
contains the list of sales made by the land owners. The enquiry
conducted by the Housing Commissioner has revealed that the
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH  HOUSING
COMMISSIONER v. NOOR MOHAMMAD
A
B

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