Section 4, 6, 11, 48 – Acquisition of land – Release of land – Fraud – Notification u/s 4 and 6 for a public purpose for residential/commercial area -- Land released to respondent no. 3 in 1997 for a specific purpose of setting up a hospital project with a further condition that the land shall not be sold without the approval of the Government and shall be used only for the facilities proposed to be set up – Respondent-DLF entered into a MOU as early as on 21.2.2005, whereas the request for permission to sell the land was made on 31.3.2005/4.4.2005 – DLF-respondent applied for setting up a S.E.Z. on the land on 14.10.2005 and ‘in principle’ approval to set up the aforesaid SEZ was granted by the State even prior to the permission to sell – Permission to set up a SEZ upon the land in favour of respondents-DLF was granted on dated 28.10.2005 and on the other hand, permission to sell land in question was granted to respondent on 28.4.2006 and while granting permission, the State completely ignored the agreement executed by respondent No.3 – Held, aforesaid facts alone are enough to establish the nexus of M/s DLF Limited with the Government to grab the property in question – Subsequent facts of granting necessary approvals for setting up of a SEZ etc. was an attempt to cover the whole malafide action and everything was facilitated to give the same a legal cover – Impugned action of the State cannot be upheld – Notifications releasing the land in favour of respondent no. 3 are set aside and it is further held that permission of sale which was granted on 28.4.2006 in favour of respondent and execution of sale deeds in favour of DLF vide sale deeds were illegal – Since the whole transaction has been found to be the result of fraudulent exercise of power, all the actions are deemed to be vitiated in law – Accordingly, proceedings u/s 4 and 6 shall be revived and the respondent-Authorities shall complete the acquisition proceedings from that stage – Result would be that the respondent-State shall pass an award acquiring the land in dispute. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).
Section 4,6 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land – Delay in challenge – Locus standi -- Power of compulsory acquisition has been used fraudulently, all objections concerning delay in challenging acquisition and locus standi are not sustainable as it is well settled that all actions taken fraudulently are vitiated in law. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).
Section 4,6, 23, 28 – Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (4 of 1922), Section 36, 42, 59 – Acquisition of land by trust -- Applicability of Land Acquisition Act – Declaration u/s 42 of the 1922 Act after one year of notification u/s 36 – Contention that declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act can be issued within one year of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore declaration u/s 42 of the 1922 Act could not have been issued -- Provisions of the Amendment Act, 1984 are not applicable to the Improvement Act, 1922 except amendments introduced relating to determination and payment of compensation viz Section 23 (2) and 28, as amended by the Amendment Act, 1984, would be applicable to the acquisitions under the State Acts and Section 23 (1A) where the Collector pronounced the Award after 30.04.1982 – Declaration u/s 42 is held to be in accordance with law. Satpal Dhiman son of Shri Jyoti Ram Dhiman v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 407 (P&H DB).
Section 4,6, 48 – Acquisition of land – Release of land -- Court cannot ignore the releases/wrongs which has become final and the persons have been benefited immensely on accounts of such wrongs by retaining those benefits illegally and this may have to be undone -- To prevent illegal benefit being retained, the Court may quash release or withdrawal from acquisition if the same is held to be vitiated by fraud -- The Court may require the State to recall such release and also to ascertain whether release was for any extraneous consideration and how wrongful gain or wrongful loss can be readjusted -- Released land may be restored to the State or sold in public auction -- State itself may recall its illegal actions -- It may not be possible to lay down any rigid rule as to how relief can be moulded by Court in an individual fact situation -- If order of release is to be cancelled, it may be necessary to hear the affected party by the Court or the authority passing the order. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).
Section 4,6,10 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation -- Writ petition filed 16 years after the award was announced by the Collector, must fail -- It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the important factors which the High Court must bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution -- High Court must refuse to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and grant relief to the writ petitioner. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).
Section 4,6,10 – Constitution of India, Article 32, 226 – Acquisition of land -- Writ jurisdiction – Limitation – In relation to the land acquisition proceedings, the Court should be loathe to encourage stale litigation as the same might hinder projects of public importance – Courts are expected to be very cautious and circumspect about exercising their discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution if there has been inordinate unexplained delay in questioning the validity of acquisition of land. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan & Ors., 2011(2) L.A.R. 284 (SC).
Section 48 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Release of land -- No merit in the contention that there is absolute power of the State or that exercise of discretion by the State cannot be interfered with in exercise of its power of judicial review -- Court can certainly see that the executive acts lawfully, bona fide and within the limits of its power -- If there is an abuse or misuse of power, jurisdiction of this Court can certainly be invoked -- Rule of law has to prevail as it the basic requirement of Article 14 that the State acts fairly, reasonably and in good faith. Harkishan v. Union of India and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 371 (P&H DB).
No comments:
Post a Comment