U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING COMMISSIONER versus RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 20-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
853
   [2022] 19 S.C.R. 853
853
U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD THROUGH HOUSING
COMMISSIONER
v.
RAM SINGH (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3023–3024 of 2022)
APRIL 20, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:s. 48 – Scope of – ‘Actual’
Possession – Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed – Acquisition of
land u/s. 28 of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965
– Urgency Clause invoked – Actual Possession of acquired land
not taken – Notification purporting to exempt the acquired land in
question – Representation by the beneficiary of the acquisition –
By notification dated 25.04.2008 exemption notification cancelled
and concerned department was directed to consider the matter –
Writ petitions by land owner, challenging the notification dated
25.04.2008 – High Court allowed the petition – On appeal, held:
Decision to withdraw from acquisition is justiciable– Such
withdrawal must be preceded by offering an opportunity to the
beneficiary – Notification under Section 48 has been issued on
07.07.2005 and the contents of the notification would tend to
indicate, inter alia, that possession of the land was not taken and
taking of possession is not actual possession – The taking of
possession which would prevent the exercise of power u/s. 48 must
be taking of khas possession or actual possession – Appellants
have not been able to establish any notice u/s. 9(3) which was issued
for acquisition of land of the Respondent – Beneficiary-appellant
has not made out a case for interference with the impugned orders.
Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 300A – No person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law - Held: An
acquisition of land is permitted to be made in public interest – Art.
300A declares that it is a constitutional right of a person to protect
his property from deprivation and deprivation can be permitted only
in accordance with law.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
854
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 An acquisition of land is permitted to be made
in public interest. Undoubtedly, Article 300A declares that it is a
constitutional right of a person to protect his property from
deprivation and deprivation can be permitted only in accordance
with law. However, in exercise of powers of eminent domain in
regard to which law finds its manifestation in the Land Acquisition
Act from time-to-time, lands/properties of individuals may have
to be acquired, for which the procedure is stipulated in the Land
Acquisition Act inter alia. Starting with a notification under Section
4 passing through the declaration under Section 6 followed up by
notices under Section 9, finally it culminates in an award. In the
meantime, if urgency warrants the immediate possession being
taken, possession can be taken by even dispensing with the
inquiry under Section 5A when the notification is issued under
Section 4 and after 15 days of the notice issued under Section
9(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 13, 14][870-G-H; 871-A-
B]
1.2 Power u/s. 48 of Land Acquisition Act is vested with a
statutory authority as in the case of all power, the trammels of
fairness in Governmental action and the imperative need to avoid
arbitrariness is inevitable in the exercise of the power under
Section 48. [Para 15][871-F]
1.3 The decision to withdraw from acquisition is justiciable.
In other words, what is described as a liberty or a power with the
Government must be understood also as being attended with the
duty to act in a fair and bona fide manner. This means that present
the inevitable and indispensable requirement, namely, that actual
possession of the land has not been taken under the Act, it is
open in a fit and appropriate case and bearing in mind public
interest and the facts for the Government to withdraw from the
acquisition. It is the duty of the authority to be mindful of all
relevant inputs before it takes a decision to withdraw from the
acquisition. It is also clear that withdrawal from the acquisition
must be preceded by offering an opportunity to the beneficiary at
whose instance the acquisition is to be made. It is also clear that
the withdrawal from acquisition can be made only by issuance of
a notification. [Para 16][873-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
855
1.4 A question may arise as to what is the true nature of the
power exercised under Section 48. It is a power which is vested
with a statutory aut

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