Om Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......in district gautam budh nagar through greater noida. the provisions of section 17(1) of the land acquisition act have also been applied.2. a division bench of this court in manveer singh and anr. v. state of u.p. and ors., 2003 (1) awc 116 : 2003 alj 1209, has dismissed a similar petition. following several supreme court decisions, it was held therein that acquisition for planned development is a public purpose.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot in question is a abadi plot of the petitioner and that he had constructions on the plot. this point has also been dealt with in manveer singh's case (supra). it was held therein that the definition of the word 'land' in section 3(a) of the land acquisition act includes buildings by a legal fiction vide chaturbhuj.....

Judgment:
ORDER

M. Katju, J.

1. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the impugned Notification dated 2.5.2003 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act so far as it relates to acquiring plot No. 104 situate in village Malakpur, pargana Dadri, Tahsil and district Gautam Budh Nagar. A true copy of the said Notification is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said Notification shows that the land is sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the planned Industrial Development in district Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida. The provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act have also been applied.

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Manveer Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2003 (1) AWC 116 : 2003 ALJ 1209, has dismissed a similar petition. Following several Supreme Court decisions, it was held therein that acquisition for planned development is a public purpose.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plot in question is a abadi plot of the petitioner and that he had constructions on the plot. This point has also been dealt with in Manveer Singh's case (supra). It was held therein that the definition of the word 'land' in Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act includes buildings by a legal fiction vide Chaturbhuj Pandey v. Collector. AIR 1969 SC 255 (Paras 8 and 9) ; S.P. Gupta v. State of U. P., 1980 ACJ 583, etc. No doubt compensation has to be given for the building also but that does not mean that the acquisition will be illegal. If a contrary view is taken, it can disrupt the entire scheme for which the acquisition is being done. Abadi land is also land within the meaning of the definition in Section 3(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, and hence it can be acquired.

4. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit. Annexure-SA-2 is the letter of the Under Secretary of the State Government dated 8.8.1997. We have carefully perused the said letter in which it is stated that ordinarily abadi land should not be acquired, but if it is acquired then the displaced person should be given land of similar area in the scheme. This itself shows that there is no absolute prohibition for acquiring abadi land. In our opinion, it all depends on the nature of the scheme and the facts of the case, and there cannot be any universal rule that abadi land cannot be acquired. Certain schemes of acquisition requires that the entire area must be acquired otherwise the scheme may be disrupted. Planned development requires levelling of the land, construction of roads, lanes etc., providing for water supply, sewerage etc. and it may not be practically possible to leave any land in the area outside the scheme of acquisition. If the petitioner's land is acquired he will be given compensation in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, which means full market value with solatium at 30% and interest.

5. Thus, there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.