Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)

Section 3(aa), 3(b), 9 – Acquisition of land by DDA – Local Authority – Person interested -- Award and Compensation -- Right of hearing – DDA falls within the definition of the expressions “local authority” and “person interested” -- D.D.A. was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector -- Failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him -- DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court  -- High Court also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation without requiring impleadment of DDA as respondent -- No notice or opportunity was given to the DDA -- Judgments passed by Reference Court and High Court set aside – Matter remitted back. Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 590 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked -- Objections – Right of – Though right to property is no longer fundamental right but Article 300A of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law -- Right to file objections makes the provision for compulsory acquisition just and in conformity with the fundamental principles of natural justice -- Exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an enquiry u/s 5A is not a routine power -- Upon challenge being made to the use of power u/s 17, the government must produce appropriate material before the court that the opinion for dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A has been formed by the government after due application of mind on the material placed before it -- In a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerations not germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Presumption of -- Repetition of statutory phrase in the notification that the state government is satisfied that the land specified in the notification is urgently needed and provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though may initially raise a presumption in favour of the government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of such power have been satisfied -- Such presumption may be displaced by the circumstances themselves having no reasonable nexus with the purpose for which power has been exercised. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Development of area – Development of city -- Development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takes many years – Held, there is no reason why summary enquiry u/s 5A may not be held and objections of land owners/persons interested may not be considered. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Duty of Government -- Government has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature that necessitates dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Challenge to -- Matter hanged from April, 2001 to November 22, 2003/February 20, 2004 before the notifications u/s 4 and for about a year thereafter in issuance of declaration u/s 6 – Held, acquisition proceedings could have been arranged in a manner so as to enable the land owners and/or the interested persons to file their objections u/s 5A within the prescribed time and complete the enquiry expeditiously -- No material on record indicating the application of mind that the urgency was of such nature which warranted elimination of the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act -- GDA wanted the subject land to be acquired because their land bank had no land and they wanted land to keep the Authority running -- If profit-making and the sustenance of the Development Authority was the motive, surely urgency was not of such nature that it could brook no delay whatsoever -- Government has completely failed to justify the dispensation of an enquiry u/s 5A by invoking Section 17(4) -- Impugned notifications to the extent they state that Section 5A shall not apply suffer from legal infirmity. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Acquisition of land – Urgency provisions invoked – Challenge to -- Award has been made and out of the 400 land owners more than 370 have already received compensation -- It is also stated that out of the total cost of Rs. 8,85,14,000/- for development of the acquired land, an amount of Rs. 5,28,00,000/- has already been spent by the GDA and more than 60% of work has been completed – Held, It is too late in the day to undo what has already been done – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are not entitled to any relief although dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A was not justified. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Whether in all cases of ‘planned development of the city’ or ‘for the development of residential area’, the power of urgency may be invoked by the government and even where such power is invoked, should the enquiry contemplated u/s 5-A be dispensed with invariably – Court did not think so. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Whether ‘planned development of city’ or ‘development of residential area’ cannot brook delay of few months to complete the enquiry u/s 5A – Ordinarily it can. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4, 5-A, 6, 17 –Development of city/residential area – Urgency Provisions invoked – Objections -- Government must, do a balancing act and resort to the special power of urgency u/s 17 in the matters of acquisition of land for the public purpose viz.; ‘planned development of city’ or ‘for development of residential area’ in exceptional situation -- Such exceptional situation may be for the public purpose viz., rehabilitation of natural calamity affected persons; rehabilitation of persons uprooted due to commissioning of dam or housing for lower strata of the society urgently; rehabilitation of persons affected by time bound projects, etc. -- List is only illustrative and not exhaustive -- Heavy onus lies on the government to justify exercise of such power – Held, use of the power of urgency and dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A by the government in a routine manner for the ‘planned development of city’ or ‘development of residential area’ and thereby depriving the owner or person interested a very valuable right u/s 5A may not meet the statutory test nor could be readily sustained. Anand Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 25 (SC).

Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Acquisition of land – Release of land – Discrimination -- In the process of acquisition, more than half of the land has been ordered to be released from the acquisition, inspite of a very good case for the release of land in favour of the petitioners, their land was kept under acquisition -- Even the land of the petitioners, regarding which, change of land use certificate was granted way back in the year 2000, was also included in declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act -- As per Policy of the State Government, land regarding which such a certificate has been issued cannot be acquired -- Even that Policy was ignored in the case of the petitioners – Held, action taken by the authorities is in complete violation of the principles laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution -- Facts of the case indicate that the common man has been reduced virtually to a zero figure -- The State authorities have shown their utter disregard to the law -- Such an attitude cannot be tolerated – Petition allowed, notifications issued u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act are quashed with costs of Rs.2,50,000/-. M/s Sindhu Education Foundation and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 454 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 300-A – Acquisition of land – Rehabilitation of owners – Requirement of -- Article 300-A of the Constitution rests on the doctrine of eminent domain and guarantees a constitutional right against deprivation of property save by authority of law – It mandates that to be valid the deprivation of property must be by authority of law – Property has been acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is a validly enacted piece of legislation – Neither Article 300-A of the Constitution nor the Land Acquisition Act make any measures for rehabilitation of the expropriated owners a condition precedent for compulsory acquisition of land -- In the absence of any such obligation arising either under Article 300-A or under any other statutory provision, rehabilitation of the owners cannot be treated as an essential requirement for a valid acquisition of property. Amarjit Singh & Ors. V. State of Punjab & Ors, 2011(1) L.A.R. 470 (SC).

Section 4, 6, 9, 31 – Acquisition land – Award – Duties of Collector -- According to Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, the Collector is under an obligation to disburse payment of compensation to the persons interested and entitled thereto according to the award -- In the absence of disbursement for any reason, the compensation is required to be deposited with the reference court -- On both counts the Collector has violated the mandate of Section 31 of the 1894 Act – Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed as the mandatory provisions of Section 31 (1) and (2) of the 1894 Act have been violated. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Section 4, 6, 9 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(4), 7, 13-B (Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Acquisition of land – Right of Proprietors -- Mustarka Malkan Munkisam land – Right of compensation -- Land in question belongs to the proprietory body of the village, which is not being used for village common purposes -- In Jamabandi of village for the year 1986-87 Mustarka Malkan Munkisam were shown as owner in column No. 4 -- Aforesaid entry appears to have been changed after the amendment effected in the year 1992 in the name of Panchayat Deh -- Petitioner along with other co-owners belonging to the proprietory bodies have got the entries corrected on 10.12.2005 in pursuance to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Jai Singh’s case 2003(2) RCR 578 – Land Acquisition Collector is directed to disburse the amount of compensation to the petitioners and other co-owners whose land has been acquired alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the rest of the period till the date of payment. Onkar Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 315 (P&H DB).

Section 4,6, 11, 11-A, 17 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Acquisition of land – Award – Challenge to – Delay in challenging -- Limitation -- Acquired land was utilized for implementing Residential Scheme -- In the process, the BDA not only incurred huge expenditure but also created third party rights -- Delay of nine years from the date of publication of the declaration issued u/s 6(1) and almost six years from the date of passing of award should have been treated by the High Court as more than sufficient for denying equitable relief. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 11, 11-A, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession taken by Authority – Award not passed within 2 years – Effect of -- State Government had acquired the land by issuing notification u/s 4 read with Section 17(1) and (4), which was followed by a declaration issued u/s 6(1) read with Section 17(1) -- Concerned revenue authorities took possession of the acquired land, which has already been utilized for implementing Residential Scheme – Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BDA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of Section 11A cannot be sustained. Satendra Prasad Jain’s case (1993) 4 SCC 369 relied. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 17 – Acquisition of land – Challenge to – Delay in challenging -- Effect of -- In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief is denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay -- Delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly or wholly utilised for the public purpose. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 16, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession of land – Procedure explained – (i) No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land -- ii) If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession -- iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken -- iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document -- v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of Section 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired land has been taken. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6, 16, 17 – Acquisition of land – Possession of land – Action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the BDA -- Utilization of the major portion of the acquired land for the public purpose for which it was acquired is clearly indicative of the fact that actual possession of the acquired land had been taken by the BDA. Banda Development Authority, Banda v. Moti Lal Agarwal and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 645 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Sale deed -- Market value of the adjacent land generally go up, therefore, post notification transaction may not be a sound criterion to determine and assess the value of the acquired land – No evidence to show that the market value of adjacent land has not increased in the interregnum -- Reference Court and the High Court were justified in rejecting these sale deeds from consideration. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value -- Acquired land is located within the M.C. limit -- Acquired land, being in the heart of the city and having excellent prospects of being used as residential site, definitely has an edge regarding the potential value -- Building potentiality of acquired land must also be taken into consideration while determining compensation. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value – Sale deed of small piece of land – Reliance upon -- Potentiality of the acquired land, reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future, must be given due consideration -- Acquired land has all the potentiality to be used as building sites, even in the immediate future, as it is located at a place in and around which building activity has already started -- Acquired land is abutting the main road and is also surrounded by schools, Panchayat union office, shops and residential building in all three sides -- Deduction due to the small size of the exemplar land can easily be set off with the corresponding increase in price of the acquired land from the point of view of potential value. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 4,6,18 – Acquisition of land -- Market Value – Potential value – A prospective purchaser would only be too willing to pay for the acquired land having immediate potentiality of being used as a residential site in a prime locale at almost the same, if not, higher price than the land covered which is located outside the Municipality area. A. Natesam Pillai v. Spl. Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, 2011(1) L.A.R. 49 (SC).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value -- Sale-deed is dated 5.11.1993 and the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 1.11.1994 -- It was incumbent upon the Court of Reference to take into consideration the sale-deed. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value -- Three sale-deeds exhibited -- Average price of the acquired land comes to Rs.7079/- per Marla -- Sale instances relate to small pieces of land, therefore, 33% cut would be just and appropriate in the given circumstances -- Besides this, the land owners will also be entitled to the statutory sum in accordance with Section 23(1-A) of the Act and 30% more sum in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 11, 15, 18, 23, 24 – Market Value – Development charges -- Land was acquired for the construction of bye-pass -- Question of deducting of 40% amount on account of development charges does not arise. C.R. Nagaraja Shetty’s case 2009(4) RCR 460 relied. Gurdev Singh & others v. State of Haryana, 2011(1) L.A.R. 59 (P&H).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – Belting system -- Relevant factors -- Question whether the acquired lands have to be valued uniformly at the same rate, or whether different areas in the acquired lands have to be valued at different rates, depends upon the extent of the land acquired, the location, proximity to an access road/Main Road/Highway or to a City/Town/Village, and other relevant circumstances. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – When a small and compact extent of land is acquired and the entire area is similarly situated, it will be appropriate to value the acquired land at a single uniform rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Belting system -- If a large tract of land is acquired with some lands facing a main road or a national highway and other lands being in the interior, the normal procedure is to value the lands adjacent to the main road at a higher rate and the interior lands which do not have road access, at a lesser rate. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Belting system -- Where a very large tract of land on the outskirts of a town is acquired, one end of the acquired lands adjoining the town boundary, the other end being two to three kilometres away, obviously, the rate that is adopted for the land nearest to the town cannot be adopted for the land which is farther away from the town -- In such a situation, what is known as a belting method is adopted and the belt or strip adjacent to the town boundary will be given the highest price, the remotest belt will be awarded the lowest rate, the belts/strips of lands falling in between, will be awarded gradually reducing rates from the highest to the lowest. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Uniform rates – Where a very large tract of land with a radius of one to two kilometres is acquired, but the entire land acquired is far away from any town or city limits, without any special Main road access, then it is logical to award the entire land, one uniform rate -- The fact that the distance between one point to another point in the acquired lands, may be as much as two to three kilometres may not make any difference. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).

Section 18 – Acquisition of land – Market Value – Sale transaction -- Sale transaction relied was one year prior to notification u/s 4 of the Act – Contention that an appropriate increase in market value should have been provided keeping in view steady increase in prices – Held, market value requires to be increased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction. Haridwar Development Authority v. Raghubir Singh etc., 2011(1) L.A.R. 491 (SC).