JASVEER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the Order of the High Court of Allahabad in Writ C. No. 59918 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the appellants for quashing the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification dated 18th Aug. 1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was "for the construction of New Broad Gauge Railway Line between Rampur and Haldwani" in the District of Rampur. Urgency clause was invoked. Possession of the land was taken on 19th Sept., 1986. The award was made on 22nd Sept., 1986. The appellants preferred reference under Sec. 18 for enhancement of compensation which was decided vide Award dated 7th Dec., 1988 by the District Judge, Rampur. First appeals against the said award were decided by the High Court on 29th Jan., 2004. This Court vide order dated 12th Sept., 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5714-15 of 2005 remanded the matters to the High Court having regard to the grievance of the appellant against denial of statutory benefits.

(2.) On 19th Dec., 2005 the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings which was decided by the High Court on 3rd Dec., 2010 directing redetermination of compensation. The said order was set aside by this Court on 16th Oct., 2012 in Civil Appeal No.7535 of 201 It was observed that :

(3.) Thereafter, the High Court considered the contention of the appellants that the award in respect of compensation was no award in the eye of law and though the possession was taken long back and railway line had been laid out, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be set aside and compensation was liable to be awarded at present market rate. The High Court rejected the said plea vide judgment dated 30th May, 2014 in Writ-C No.77449 of 2005. It was observed that objection of the appellants against the award had already been considered and remand by the Supreme Court on 12th Sept., 2005 was only in respect of statutory benefits. For the first time plea was sought to be raised in the writ petition against validity of acquisition which was impermissible in view of law laid down by this Court in Aflatoon Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285, Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695, Sawaran Lata Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532 and Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal, (2011) 5 SCC 394. Judgment of this Court in Royal Orchid Hotel Vs. G. Tayarama Reddy, (2011) 10 SCC 608 was distinguished as that case related to fraudulent exercise of power of eminent domain. The High Court concluded :