FAIZABAD AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
LAWS(SC)-2022-5-99
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
May 20,2022
Faizabad Ayodhya Development Authority
Appellant
VERSUS
Dr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SAMBASIVA CHARI V. RAMASAMI REDDI [REFERRED TO]MONTREAL STREET RAILWAY CO. V. NORMANDIN [REFERRED TO]
KESHARDEO CHAMRIA VS. RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA [REFERRED TO]
MRUTUNJAY PANI VS. NARMADA BALA SASMAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAMPRAKASH P PURI [REFERRED TO]
GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
ZAFAR KHAN VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR DEY VS. TARAPADA DEY [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NORTH TELUMER COLLIARY [REFERRED TO]
G NARAYANASWAMY REDDY VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
YUSUFBHAI NOORMOHMED NENDOLIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GANDHI GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
HANSRAJ H JAIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKAR VS. BOARD OF DIRECTORS U P S R T C [REFERRED TO]
SANGAPPA GURULINGAPPA SAJJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA TREHAN VS. BALSARA HYGIENE PRODUCTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO SAVLARAM SHELKE VS. PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
GURSHARAN SINGH ASHWANI SACHDEVA VS. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE:NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
MURARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ABHEY RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GTC INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MARSHALL SONS AND COMPANY I LIMITED VS. SAHI ORETRANS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA KISHORE JHA VS. MAHAVIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD GAZI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. CONNANORE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA RARE EARTH VS. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
HUDA VS. BABESWAR KANHAR [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. C L MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET SINGH VS. DEVI RATAN [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KALABHARATI ADVERTISING VS. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO LEGAL ACTION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ESSAR OIL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
A. SHANMUGAM VS. ARIYA KSHATRIYA RAJAKULA VAMSATHU MADALAYA NANDHAVANA PARIPALANAI SANGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ETC [REFERRED TO]
PADMAWATI V. HARIJAN SEWAK SANGH [REFERRED TO]
V CHANDRASEKARAN VS. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
JEEWAN NATH WAHAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH NEEMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
M.R.SHAH,J. -
(1.)As common questions of law and facts arise in this group of appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
(2.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments and orders/order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein - original landowners by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petitions by directing the respective appellant(s) - Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original landowners as per "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013)" on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") was declared with respect to the lands acquired, the respective Development Authorities have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022
(3.)Land totally measuring 17.172 hectares in village Ranopali, District Faizabad was requisitioned by the Faizabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") for the purpose of residential project. The land therein included land admeasuring 03.13 hectares in Plot Nos. 407, 413 and 415 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the "original landowners").
3.1 Notification under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 17 was issued. The original landowners preferred Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the acquisition with respect to the aforesaid three plots. The High Court granted interim stay restraining the Authority from taking over the possession of the aforesaid three plots. Except the aforesaid three plot, the possession of the entire land was taken over by the Authority. Even the Award under Sec. 11 of Act, 1894 was also declared except in respect of the aforesaid three plots in question, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and due to the interim order passed by the High Court. It is this significant fact, which has led us to consider this case in light of the real intention of the Parliament under Sec. 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Thus, excluding the land involved in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., the aforesaid three plots, possession of the remaining property was taken over on 7/9/2005 and Award therein was published on 10/4/2007. A total sum of Rs.5,11,60,606.00 was made available on different dates with respect to the compensation to be paid.
3.2 Vide order dtd. 27/9/2010, the High Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 preferred by the respondents herein by directing the State Government to consider the application/representation submitted by the original landowners under Sec. 48(1) of the Act, 1894. That the Appropriate Authority rejected the representation/application of the original landowners under Sec. 48 of the Act, 1894 vide order dtd. 13/3/2012. The respondents herein - original landowners again preferred the present Writ Petition No. 41 of 2012 before the High Court.
3.3 During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Act, 2013 came into force. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the original landowners - original writ petitioners that as no award has been made under Sec. 11 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act, 2013 would be attracted and the original landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined under the provisions of Act, 2013.
3.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has observed and held that the respondents herein - original writ petitioners - original landowners would be entitled to compensation in terms of provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, as pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court, now the original landowners / original writ petitioners will have to be paid compensation as determined under the Act, 2013, the Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 2917 of 2022
;
(2.)Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective judgments and orders/order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein - original landowners by which the High Court has disposed of the said writ petitions by directing the respective appellant(s) - Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original landowners as per "The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013)" on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1894") was declared with respect to the lands acquired, the respective Development Authorities have preferred the present appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022
(3.)Land totally measuring 17.172 hectares in village Ranopali, District Faizabad was requisitioned by the Faizabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") for the purpose of residential project. The land therein included land admeasuring 03.13 hectares in Plot Nos. 407, 413 and 415 belonging to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the "original landowners").
3.1 Notification under Sec. 4 and Sec. 6 read with Sec. 17 was issued. The original landowners preferred Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 before the High Court challenging the acquisition with respect to the aforesaid three plots. The High Court granted interim stay restraining the Authority from taking over the possession of the aforesaid three plots. Except the aforesaid three plot, the possession of the entire land was taken over by the Authority. Even the Award under Sec. 11 of Act, 1894 was also declared except in respect of the aforesaid three plots in question, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and due to the interim order passed by the High Court. It is this significant fact, which has led us to consider this case in light of the real intention of the Parliament under Sec. 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Thus, excluding the land involved in the aforesaid writ petition, i.e., the aforesaid three plots, possession of the remaining property was taken over on 7/9/2005 and Award therein was published on 10/4/2007. A total sum of Rs.5,11,60,606.00 was made available on different dates with respect to the compensation to be paid.
3.2 Vide order dtd. 27/9/2010, the High Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition No. 3810 of 2005 preferred by the respondents herein by directing the State Government to consider the application/representation submitted by the original landowners under Sec. 48(1) of the Act, 1894. That the Appropriate Authority rejected the representation/application of the original landowners under Sec. 48 of the Act, 1894 vide order dtd. 13/3/2012. The respondents herein - original landowners again preferred the present Writ Petition No. 41 of 2012 before the High Court.
3.3 During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Act, 2013 came into force. At the time of hearing of the present writ petition before the High Court, it was submitted on behalf of the original landowners - original writ petitioners that as no award has been made under Sec. 11 of the Act, 1894, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act, 2013 would be attracted and the original landowners shall be entitled to the compensation determined under the provisions of Act, 2013.
3.4 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has observed and held that the respondents herein - original writ petitioners - original landowners would be entitled to compensation in terms of provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, as pursuant to the impugned judgment and order passed by the High court, now the original landowners / original writ petitioners will have to be paid compensation as determined under the Act, 2013, the Faizabad-Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 2917 of 2022
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.