# Baijnath Yadav v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 887
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baijnath-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40030
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act- Section 3 (a)- Land
acquired
for
purpose
of
developing
colony
by
Varanasi
Development
Authority- after depositing compensation
possession taken and the land developed
as Patrkar Colony- the objection that
only the open land was acquired and not
the building and trees standing over the
plot.
Held-
'wrong'-
land
includes
building and trees- fastened to the plot
in question.

Held- Para 16

The expression 'land' includes benefits to
arise out of land, and things attached to
the earth or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth. '
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 2517, AIR 1971 SC- 1033, 1996
(10) SCC -721, 1989 AWC 1137, 1991 AWC
341 AIR 1969 SC-255, 1980 ACJ 583

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Baijnath Yadav V. State of U.P. and others 887

13. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner, however, submitted that he be
allowed time to correct the description.
This cannot be permitted by amendment
as has been held in the V.V. Inter College
(Supra). However, by dismissal of the
Writ Petition management/society of the
institution, which own, runs and manage,
shall not be precluded from approaching
the concerned authority to seek redressal
of his grievance and recall the impugned
order dated 16th July, 1999 providing
review
its
decision
after
affording
opportunity to the management/society
running the institution to file documents
and such information as may be required
by such authority and holding enquiry as
may be required.

14. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2002

Baijnath Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. Chaturvedi
Sri Atul Mehra
Sri V.B. Singh
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act- Section 3 (a)- Land
acquired
for
purpose
of
developing
colony
by
Varanasi
Development
Authority- after depositing compensation
possession taken and the land developed
as Patrkar Colony- the objection that
only the open land was acquired and not
the building and trees standing over the
plot.
Held-
'wrong'-
land
includes
building and trees- fastened to the plot
in question.

Held- Para 16

The expression 'land' includes benefits to
arise out of land, and things attached to
the earth or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth. '
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 2517, AIR 1971 SC- 1033, 1996
(10) SCC -721, 1989 AWC 1137, 1991 AWC
341 AIR 1969 SC-255, 1980 ACJ 583

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition and connected
writ petitions are being disposed of by a
common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari for quashing the
notifications dated 7.3.1996 and 8.1.1997
under sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act (Annexure 6 and 7 to the
writ petition) so far as they relate to the
petitioner's plot no. 133/1 in which the
petitioner claims 1/4th share in village
Chuppepur, paragana Shivpur, tahsil and
district Varanasi.

2A. The petitioner is claiming 1/4th
share in plot no. 133/1 situate in village
Chuppepur, pargana Shivpur, Tahsil and
district Varanasi. In paragraph 4 of the
petition it is alleged that on part of the
aforesaid
land
there
are
pakka
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
constructions raised sometime in the year
1970 consisting of two rooms, three
shops, verandah etc. Annexure-1 is the
photocopy of the alleged site from various
angles. The petitioner has alleged that he
is living in the said pakka construction
with his family and the construction has
been regularized by paying compounding
fee under the voluntary compounding
scheme. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the
writ petition that the petitioner has no
other house to live in. The petitioner has
taken water, electricity and telephone
connection.

3. In paragraph 13 of the writ
petition it is alleged that the State
Government issued a notification dated
7.3.1996 under Section 4 (1) read with
Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, copy of which is annexure 6 to the
writ petition, which was published in the
U.P.
Gazette
dated
7.3.1996
vide
Annexure 6 to the writ petition. A perusal
of the said notification shows that the land
is proposed to be acquired for building a
residential colony under the planned
development scheme of the Varanasi
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred to as 'VDA'). The notification
also states that the Governor is of the
opinion that the land is urgently required
for the said purpose and hence section 5A was dispensed with. In paragraph 15 of
the writ petition it is stated that although
the notification under Section 4/17 was
published on 7.3.1996 the notification
under Section 6 was published on
8.1.1997. Hence it was alleged that there
was no urgency for dispensing with
proceeding under Section 5-A. True copy
of the notification under Section 6 dated
8.1.1997 is Annexure 7 to the writ
petition.

4. In paragraph 17 of the writ
petition it is stated that under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act an award
has to be made within two years of the
declaration under Section 6 but in the
present case the award was prepared on
30.7.1999 vide Annexure 8 to the writ
petition. Hence it is alleged that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

5. In paragraph 19 of the writ
petition it is stated that the petitioner was
assured by the authorities that the
constructed portion including the living
house, shop etc. will be exempted and
hence the petitioner did not approach this
Court earlier. In this connection the notice
dated 25.7.2001 is Annexure 9 to the writ
petition.

6. In para 20 it is alleged that the
employees/agents of the respondents
came on the spot in order to demolish the
constructions . They were obstructed by
the local residents, and hence an FIR
dated 16.8.2001 was lodged against the
petitioner and others vide Annexure 10 to
the writ petition. However, a final report
has been filed vide Annexure 11 to the
writ petition.

7. It is alleged that there was no
urgent need and hence Section 5-A should
not have been dispensed with. It is alleged
that Section 11-A has been violated.

8. Two counter affidavits has been
filed on behalf of the V.D.A. In the
counter affidavit of Ram Dhani Yadav it
is stated in paragraph 3 that the plot in
dispute has been legally acquired by the
VDA
for
the
construction
of
the
residential colony and the V.D.A. was
given possession of the plot in dispute by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Baijnath Yadav V. State of U.P. and others 889
Varanasi on 1.6.1998. At present the
V.D.A. is in physical possession of the
plot in question and it has constructed its
boundary wall and has further developed
the acquired land by filing it with mud
worth Rs. 18 lacs. Rs. 7 lacs have been
spent for the construction of boundary
wall.
The
petitioner
has
received
Rs.6,36,632/-
as
compensation
on
10.10.2001 after passing of the award
dated 30.7.1999. True copy of the order
dated 1.6.1998 is annexure CA 1 to the
counter affidavit. Since the aforesaid
property has vested in the V.D.A. and the
name of V.D.A. has been entered into the
revenue
records,
the
Special
Land
Acquisition Officer issued a parawana on
16/17.1.2002 to the Tahsildar (vide
Annexure A-2 and as such the petitioner
has no right to challenge the notification
under Section 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act.

9. In paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the V.D.A. is in
possession of the plot and petitioner has
received compensation as awarded by the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Varanasi. In paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Varanasi in his award
dated 30.7.1999 has no where stated that
there are any constructions on the
disputed plot. Since the petitioner has
received compensation on the basis of the
aforesaid award, therefore, the land in
question fully vests in the V.D.A. and the
petitioner has no right to challenge the
notification under Section 4 and 6. In
paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is
denied that there is any residential house
on the plot in dispute about which the
petitioner was informed on 26.12.1999.

10. In paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Varanasi has handed
over the possession of the plot in dispute
and a full-fledged residential Patrakar
colony is to be developed by the
respondent no. 1 and the construction
work is in full swing and the land is
vested in the V.D.A. and the petitioner
has been paid full compensation. Hence
he has no right to challenge the same at a
belated stage.

11. In paragraph 17 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in
Satyendra Prasad Jain vs. State of UP AIR
1993 SC 2517 the provisions of Section
11-A will not be applicable where the
acquisition is made under Section 17. It
was on the basis of the aforesaid
judgment that G.O. dated 30.11.1993 was
issued vide Annexure CA-3.

12. In paragraph 13 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was
never pressurized to lift the amount of
compensation and he never objected to
the same. The possession has been taken
by the V.D.A,. and the land is vested in it.
Hence the petitioner has no right to
challenge the notification.

13.

A
supplementary
counter
affidavit has also been filed by the V.D.A.
and in paragraph 4 it is stated that the
other tenure holders whose land was
acquired under the notification dated
7.3.1996 and 8.1.1997 had filed writ
petition no. 20609 of 1998 Mohammad
Siddique and others vs. State of U.P. and
others which was dismissed by this Court
on 7.7.1999. True copy of the judgment of
this Court dated 7.7.1999 is Annexure
SCA-1. In paragraph 6 it is stated that the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
award was not challenged by means of
reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. In paragraph 7 it is stated
that the full-fledged colony had already
been developed on the disputed land the
V.D.A. is on the verge of allotting the
same and any interim order granted in
favour of the petitioner will cause
irreparable loss to the respondent.

14. We have perused the judgment
of this Court in writ petition no. 20609 of
1998 dated 7.7.1999 and we are fully in
agreement with the said judgment. The
land has been acquired and vested in the
V.D.A. and this writ petition filed in the
year 2002 is highly belated and is liable to
be dismissed on this ground itself.
Moreover, we find no illegality in the
notification under Section 4 and 6.
Building of a residential colony under the
planned development scheme is clearly
for the public purpose and is urgently
required as there is shortage of residential
accommodation.

15. In Jage Ram v. State of
Haryana AIR 1971 SC 1033 it was held
by the Supreme Court that unless it is
shown that there was colourable exercise
of power the Court cannot go behind the
declaration of the Government and find
out in a particular case whether the
purpose for which the land was needed
was a public purpose or not. In State of
U.P. v. Smt. Pista Dei and others (1986)
4 Supreme Court Cases 251 the Supreme
Court held that even if there are some
superstructures standing on the land they
cannot be left our from the acquisition. In
Ajay Krishan Shinghal and others v.
Union of India and others (1996) 10
SCC 721 it was held that acquisition for
planned development is a public purpose.
In Bal Krishan Gulati v. State of UP and
others 1991 AWC 1210 it was held that
where there is a recital of urgency the
Court should not ordinarily interfere. In
M/s Garg Farms and others v. State of
U.P. and others 1989 AWXC 1137 this
Court held that if the Government formed
the opinion that the matter was one of
urgency under Section 17 (2) and it had
some material for this opinion the Court
should not interfere. In Kunwar Lal and
others vs. State of U.P. and others (1989)
1 UPLBEC 772 it was held that
dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A
depends on subjective satisfaction of the
State Government. It was also held that
where the declaration has been made by
the State Government under Section 6 (3)
that a particular land is neede for a public
purpose, the said declaration shall be
conclusive evidence of the fact that it is so
needed. The same view has been taken by
this Court in Ram Narain Rai v. State of
U.P. (1991) AWC 341.

16. It may be pointed out that
section 3 (a) of the Land Acquisition Act
states :-

(a) the expression 'land' includes benefits
to arise out of land, and things
attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything attached to the
earth."

17. The above definition shows that
even building and trees will be deemed,
by a legal fiction, to be land for the
purpose of the Land Acquisition Act as
they are attached to or permanently
fastened to the earth vide Chaturbhuj
Pande v. Collector, AIR 1969 SC 255
(Paras 8 and 9), S.P. Gupta v. State of
U.P., 1980 ACJ 583, etc. Hence it cannot
be said that when land is being sought to
be acquired the building or trees standing
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Satya Pal Singh and others V. M.A.C.T./F.T.C. IId Saharanpur and others 891
thereon have to be exempted. No doubt
compensation has to be given for the
building and trees also, but it does not
mean that exemption from acquisition
must be granted to the building or trees or
the land on which the building stands. If
such a view is taken it can disrupt the
entire scheme for which the land is being
acquired.

18. It may be noted that writ petition
no. 20609 of 1998 had been filed in the
year 1998 whereas these three writ
petitions have been filed in the year 2002.
Thus they are clearly belated and it is not
open to the petitioners to challenge the
notifications under section 4 and 6 at this
late stage.

19. As regards the plea of the
petitioner that they have residential plots
we have discussed this aspect in the
decision of Ram Charittar and others vs.
State of U.P. and others decided on
4.10.2002 and have held that even
buildings or trees can be acquired under
the Land Acquisition Act because the
definition of land under section 3 (a) of
the Land Acquisition Act by a legal
fiction includes building and trees.

20. Thus there is no force in these
petition and they are dismissed. The
interim orders are vacated . No order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37931 of 2002

Satya Pal Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
M.A.C.T./F.T.C.,
IId
Saharanpur
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Y.K. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Motor Vehicle Act- 1988- Section 166
(3)- Limitation for filing claim petition-
accident took place on 19.4.02- claim
filed on 19.4.01- rightly rejected- in view
of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court AIR 1996 SC 2155- No Limitation
prescribed.

Held- Para 6 and 9
Case law discussed:
AIR 1999 SC-3502, AIR 1966 SC-2155, AIR
1991 SC 2156

From the above pronouncement of the
apex court it is clear that in view of the
amendment made by the Amendment
Act 54 of 1994 there was no limitation
for filing an application in respect of any
accident. The apex court also; held that
when sub section (3) of Section 166 has
been omitted then the Tribunal has to
entertain a claim petition without taking
note of the date on which such accident
had taken place. The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal has rightly relied on the
said judgment of the apex court while
rejecting the objection raised by the writ
petitioner.

Present case are fully covered by the
apex court judgment in Dhannalal v. D.P.