# Kamal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 362
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 31586 of 2016
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45591
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, Sri Kuldeep
Singh
Chauhan,
Sri
Neeraj
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri
Yogesh Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava,
Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Sri M.D. Singh
Shekhar, Sri H.N. Singh

A. Land Acquisition Act,1894-initiated for
establishing
Growth
Centre
by
UPSIDCcompensation
paid-land
not
vacated
by
farmers-land to be transfered by UPSIDC by
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
THDCIL-together paid more compensation
beyond compensation fixed by Reference Court
for taking actual possession as ex-gratia
payment-such payment illegal-no provision of
granting ex-gratia payment in Act, 1894direction issued to C.B.I. for registering an
F.I.R. and investigation-High Court has power
under
Article
226-
notifications
dated
13.02.1991 and 23.03.1991 also challenged in
connected writs-challenged after two decadeshuge delay-such writs dismissed.
W.P.
nos.
52602/2011,
59955/2012,
59958/2012, 59962/ 2012 and 59964/2012dismissed
W.P. nos. 31586/2016-pending-direction issued
to C.B.I. (supra).
W.P.
nos.47504/2017,
50821/2017,
50824/2017,51857/2017 and 57562/2017 are
pending.

Held:

It was permissible for the Authorities to again
pay compensation from the public exchequer to
the erstwhile land owners at an exorbitant rate
and that too at a rate which was applicable
after more than two decades of the acquisition,
the finding recorded by the Committee is that it
was not permissible to do so and that it was
not permissible to subsequently take recourse
to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act
when the award had already been made under
Section 11(1) of the Act. (para 11)

Though the possession of the land was given to
UPSIDC in 1993 but as the UPSIDC failed to
make use of the land for a substantially long
period, it gave an opportunity to the farmers to
re-enter the land and do farming and thereby
create a situation for them to make an
unreasonable demand.(para 11)

The notifications are of the year 1991, whereas
the writ petitions were filed in the year 2011
and 2012, after a period of more than 20
years. Averments of the writ petitions are silent
on the issue of any explanation of gross delay
in approaching this Court.Admittedly, the
possession of the land was taken way back in
the year 1993. The special land Acquisition
Officer had made award in the year 1993 and
1995 and as such entire proceedings of
acquisition was completed wayback in the year
1995.In view of above discussions, we dismiss
the Writ Petition Nos.52602 of 2011, 59955 of
2012, 59958 of 2012, 59962 of 2012 and
59964 of 2012 on the ground of gross delay
and laches.(para 45)

Cases Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,857 of 103,719. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39857 for what follows._

362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be considered appropriate in the case and
in case of such an eventuality and if it is
found that the management was at fault
and wrongly denied the admission to the
meritorious candidate, in that case, the
Court may direct to reduce the number of
seats in the management quota of that
year, meaning thereby the student/students
who was/were denied admission illegally
to be accommodated in the next academic
year out of the seats allotted in the
management quota.

(iv) Grant of the compensation
could be an additional remedy but not a
substitute
for
restitutional
remedies.
Therefore, in an appropriate case the
Court may award the compensation to
such a meritorious candidate who for no
fault of his/her has to lose one full
academic year and who could not be
granted any relief of admission in the
same academic year.

(v) It is clarified that the
aforesaid directions pertain for Admission
in MBBS Course only and we have not
dealt with Post Graduate Medical Course.

10. In view of the above, the
decision of this Court in the case of
Jasmine Kaur (Supra) or any other
decisions contrary to the above stand
overruled. The decision of this Court in the
case of Asha (Supra) is hereby affirmed to
the aforesaid extent. The reference is
answered accordingly."

18. Considering the ratio of the
judgments of the Apex Court and the fact
that we have already held that the
admission was denied to the petitioner on
account of totally arbitrary consideration
by the respondent authorities and coupled
with the fact that the seats are vacant in the
Medical Colleges as are indicated in the
chart filed by Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh,
we hold that the petitioner being a
meritorious student is entitled to a
restitutionary relief and entitled to be
admitted in the College where the seats are
vacant to be decided by the respondent no.
2 within a period of 15 days from today
subject to the petitioner complying with
the other formalities.

19. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the said direction.
----------
(2020)02ILR A362

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ C No. 31586 of 2016
&
Writ C Cases No. 52602 of 2011, 59955 of
2012, 59958 of 2012, 59962 of 2012, 59964 of
2012, 47504 of 2017, 50821 of 2017, 50824 of
2017, 51857 of 2017, & 57562 of 2017

Kamal Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Sri Anurag
Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Pratap Singh, Sri Kuldeep
Singh
Chauhan,
Sri
Neeraj
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri
Yogesh Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava,
Sri Saurabh Srivastava, Sri M.D. Singh
Shekhar, Sri H.N. Singh

A. Land Acquisition Act,1894-initiated for
establishing
Growth
Centre
by
UPSIDCcompensation
paid-land
not
vacated
by
farmers-land to be transfered by UPSIDC by
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
363
THDCIL-together paid more compensation
beyond compensation fixed by Reference Court
for taking actual possession as ex-gratia
payment-such payment illegal-no provision of
granting ex-gratia payment in Act, 1894direction issued to C.B.I. for registering an
F.I.R. and investigation-High Court has power
under
Article
226-
notifications
dated
13.02.1991 and 23.03.1991 also challenged in
connected writs-challenged after two decadeshuge delay-such writs dismissed.
W.P.
nos.
52602/2011,
59955/2012,
59958/2012, 59962/ 2012 and 59964/2012dismissed
W.P. nos. 31586/2016-pending-direction issued
to C.B.I. (supra).
W.P.
nos.47504/2017,
50821/2017,
50824/2017,51857/2017 and 57562/2017 are
pending.

Held:

It was permissible for the Authorities to again
pay compensation from the public exchequer to
the erstwhile land owners at an exorbitant rate
and that too at a rate which was applicable
after more than two decades of the acquisition,
the finding recorded by the Committee is that it
was not permissible to do so and that it was
not permissible to subsequently take recourse
to the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act
when the award had already been made under
Section 11(1) of the Act. (para 11)

Though the possession of the land was given to
UPSIDC in 1993 but as the UPSIDC failed to
make use of the land for a substantially long
period, it gave an opportunity to the farmers to
re-enter the land and do farming and thereby
create a situation for them to make an
unreasonable demand.(para 11)

The notifications are of the year 1991, whereas
the writ petitions were filed in the year 2011
and 2012, after a period of more than 20
years. Averments of the writ petitions are silent
on the issue of any explanation of gross delay
in approaching this Court.Admittedly, the
possession of the land was taken way back in
the year 1993. The special land Acquisition
Officer had made award in the year 1993 and
1995 and as such entire proceedings of
acquisition was completed wayback in the year
1995.In view of above discussions, we dismiss
the Writ Petition Nos.52602 of 2011, 59955 of
2012, 59958 of 2012, 59962 of 2012 and
59964 of 2012 on the ground of gross delay
and laches.(para 45)

Cases Cited:

1. Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs.
Union of India &Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 667

2.
Secretary,
Minor
Irrigation
&
Rural
Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs.
Sahngoo Ram Arya &Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 521

3. State of West Bengal and Others Vs.
Committee for protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal &Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571

4. Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of
India, (1998) 4 SCC 409; AIR 1998 SC 1895

5. K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police
CBCID South Zone, Chennai &Ors, (2013) 12
SCC 480

6. Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana &Ors,
(2016) 4 SCC 160

7. Bimal Gurung Vs. Union of India &Ors,
(2018) 15 SCC 480

8. E. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India &Ors,
(2018) 7 SCC 365

9. Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India, (2014)
8 SCC 768

10. Shree Shree Ram JankiAsthanTapovan
Mandir And Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and
Ors, (2019) 6 SCC 777

11.Aflatoon Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1975 (4)
SCC 285

12. P. Chinnanna&Ors Vs. State of A.P. &Ors,
(1994) 5 SCC 486

13. State of T.N. &Ors Vs. L. Krishnan &Ors,
(1996) 1 SCC 250

14. Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur Vs.
Bheru Lal &Ors, (2002) 7 SCC 712
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. &Anr. Vs. State
of Rajasthan &Ors, (2008 ) 4 SCC 695

16. Banda Development Authority Vs. Motilal
Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394

17. State of Haryana Vs. M/s. G.D. Goenka
Tourism Corporation Ltd: (2018) 3 SCC 585

18. Gudulare M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, (1992)
1 SCC 397

19. R.S.Sodhi v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 38

20. Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn, v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 1023

21. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC
199

22. Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi., AIR 1997
SC 314

23. Disha v. State of Gujarat., AIR 2011 SC 3168

24. Rajendrer Singh Pathania v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 329 State of Punjab v.
Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, AIR 2012 SC 364

25. TilokchandMotichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1
SCC 110

26. Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India, (1970) 1
SCC 84

27. Reliance Petroleum Ltd. v. Zaver Chand
PopatlalSumaira (1996) 4 SCC 579

28. Hari Singh v. State of U.P. (1984) 2 SCC 624
29. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial
Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd.(1996) 11 SCC
501

30. State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi,
(1996) 6 SCC 445

31. Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah
HyderBeig (2000) 2 SCC 48

32. State of Rajasthan v. D.R. Laxmi
C.Padma v. Dy. Secy. To the Govt of T.N.
(1997) 2 SCC 627

33. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR
1964 SC 1006

34. Ajodhya Bhagat v. State of Bihar (1974) 2 SCC
501

35. Girdharan Prasad Missir v. State of Bihar (1980)
2 SCC 83

36. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v.
Industrial Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd.
(1996) 11 SCC 501

37. Ganpatibai v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC
508

38. State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar (1995) 4
SCC 229

39. Swaran Lata v. State of Haryana (2010) 4
SCC 532

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. The facts which led to filing of the
present bunch of writ petitions are as
follows:

2. A notification under Section 4(1)
read with Section 17 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1894') was published on 13.2.1991 to
acquire a total 969.023 acres of land in
four villages namely: Dashahra Kherli,
Rukanpur, Jahanpur and Naifal alias
Unchagaon,
Pargana
and
Tehsil:Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The acquisition of land was
initiated at the instance of U.P. State
Industrial
Development
Corporation,
Kanpur
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
''UPSIDC') for the purpose of establishing
Growth Centre at district Bulandshahr.
Declaration under Section 6(1) read with
Section 17 of Act, 1894 was made on
23.3.1991. Possession of land was taken
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
on 7.10.1993, 8.10.1993, 13.10.1993 and
16.10.1993. Special Land Acquisition
Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'SLAO')
made award determining compensation in
respect to the land acquired on 15.10.1993,
16.10.1993, 22.10.1993 and 31.3.1995.

4.

The
SLAO
determined
compensation of total Rs.2,87,14,996.53.
Certain land owners who were not
satisfied
with
determination
of
compensation by SLAO got Reference
made under Section 18 of Act, 1894.
Reference Court increased amount of
compensation and fixed at a total of
Rs.7,13,37,504/-.

5. After Reference, certain amount of
compensation was disbursed and balance
amount was deposited as revenue deposit
in the Treasury, Bulandshahr, Uttar
Pradesh.

6.

U.P.S.I.D.C.
made
various
complaints that though compensation has
been paid and possession has been taken,
still some farmers have not vacated their
part
of
land
which
was
creating
obstruction in the development activities.
In further development, UPSIDC entered
into an agreement (Memorandum of
Understanding) on 14.12.2013 with the
Tehri Hyrro Development Corporation
India Limited (hereinafter referred to as
"THDCIL") to establish 1320 Megawatt
Super Thermal Power Project on the said
land and for that purpose land was sought
to be transferred by UPSIDC to THDCIL.
The further development in the present
case was that district authorities, UPSIDC
and THDCIL decided to pay more
compensation beyond the compensation
fixed by Reference Court in order to settle
with the villagers so that UPSIDC took
actual possession of land acquired. After
certain negotiations with the villagers it
was decided to pay compensation at the
rate of Rs.721/- per square metre. The said
additional compensation was termed as ''ex
gratia payment'. The total compensation
was increased from Rs.7,13,37,504/- to Rs.
3,87,17,71,833/- i.e. on enhancement of
about 380 Crores.

7. The main reliefs sought in the
bunch of the writ petitions are briefly as
follows:

a) Writ Petition No.31586 of
2016, the petitioners have sought for the
relief which is as under:

(i) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
commanding to Respondent no.3 to release
the compensation in respect of petitioners'
land comprising of Khata No.162 Plot
No.270, 288, 522Sa, 549, 550, 591, 593,
686, 710, 735, 790, 802, 809 and 811 total
area 5.391 Hectare situated in village
Dashara Kherli, Pargana and Tehsil
Khurja, district bulandshahr."

b) Writ Petition Nos. 52602 of
2011, 59955 of 2012, 59958 of 2012,
59962 of 2012 and 59964 of 2012:- in all
these writ petitions, a common relief has
been sought by the petitioners which is as
under:

"(i) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned notifications dated 13.2.1991
and dated 23.3.1991 issued by respondent
no.1 (Annex.Nos.1 and 2)."

8. In Writ Petition Nos.47504 of
2017, 50821 of 2017, 50824 of 2017,
51857 of 2017 and 57562 of 2017,
petitioners have sought declaration of
lapse of acquisition under Section 24 (2)
of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
land
Acquisition,
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred as the Act, 2013).

9. When the matter was listed before
this Court, after exchange of pleadings, a
detailed order dated 29.8.2016 was passed
whereby a serious note was taken about
the huge payment of ''ex-gratia amount'
over
and
above
the
compensation
determined by the authorities under Act,
1894 and a direction was passed to enquire
into the matter by a High Powered Enquiry
Committee to be constituted by Chief
Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The said
Committee was to be headed by a Judicial
Officer. It was also directed to examine the
facts, (i) Where land acquired and
compensation determined and paid under
Act, 1894, whether it is permissible for
authorities to again pay compensation
from public exchequer to erstwhile land
owners at an exorbitant rate and that too at
a rate which is applicable after more than
two decades from acquisition notification
under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued;
(ii) Whether acquired land had market
value for the purpose of compensation at
Rs.721/- per square metre on the date
when notification under Section 4 of Act,
1894 was issued particularly when in this
regard awards by District Judge under
Section 18 of Act, 1894 have already been
made determining much lesser value; (iii)
If possession was taken over of acquired
land in 1993, why District Administration
did not take any effective steps to
dispossess unauthorized occupants, and
(iv) Who are the persons/authorities
responsible
to
permit
continued
unauthorized
possession
of
erstwhile
tenure holders over acquired land and
thereby creating a situation where Farmers
re-entered the land and Administration
found itself handicapped to dispossess
them without accepting their demand.

10. The relevant part of the order is
also reproduced hereinafter:

"31.
Acquisition
which
commenced in 1990, SLAO made awards
at the rate is less than Rs.2/- per square
yard, enhanced to some extent by District
Judge, Bulandshahr in some references,
the rate has now been increased to several
hundred times. Further, on acquisition
finalized by SLAO or District Judge with
regard to compensation and possession of
land was also taken by parties in 1993, for
the same land, again compensation is
sought to be paid and the total amount
which was earlier less than three crores is
now increased to 275 crores and above.
This is something fantastic and mindblowing.

32. In our view, facts are selfspeaking and smacks of something
scammish
somewhere.
Initially,
we
intended to have the matter enquired by
a Special Investigation Team, headed by
a Judicial Officer, or by Central Bureau
of Investigation but then it appears to us
that authorities at District level and
officials of UPSIDC and THDCIL,
among themselves, have colluded to
extract a huge money from public
exchequer in the name of distribution of
compensation to Farmers but these facts
in entirety were not made known to
Government, hence, we require Chief
Secretary, U.P., Lucknow to constitute a
High
Powered
Inquiry
Committee
headed by a Judicial Officer of the rank
of not less than Additional Legal
Remembrancer. It shall also have as
Members, a Senior Official of Revenue
Department and a competent Senior
Police Official, who would conduct an
indepth inquiry in the matter and submit
report as to how all this has happened
and who are the persons responsible.
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367

33.The
aforesaid
Committee,
besides other, shall also examine the facts,
(i) Where land acquired and compensation
determined and paid under Act, 1894,
whether it is permissible for authorities to
again pay compensation from public
exchequer to erstwhile land owners at an
exorbitant rate and that too at a rate
which is applicable after more than two
decades from acquisition notification
under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued;
(ii) Whether acquired land had market
value for the purpose of compensation at
Rs.721/- per square metre on the date
when notification under Section 4 of Act,
1894 was issued particularly when in this
regard awards by District Judge under
Section 18 of Act, 1894 have already been
made determining much lesser value; (iii)
If possession was taken over of acquired
land in 1993, why District Administration
did not take any effective steps to
dispossess unauthorized occupants, and
(iv) Who are the persons/authorities
responsible
to
permit
continued
unauthorized
possession
of
erstwhile
tenure holders over acquired land and
thereby
creating
a
situation
where
Farmers
re-entered
the
land
and
Administration found itself handicapped to
dispossess them without accepting their
demand.

34.
Chief
Secretary,
U.P.,
Lucknow while submitting report of
Committee shall also file an affidavit
stating, if this case is taken to be an
example whether this can be treated as a
policy of Government that where-ever
erstwhile owners of acquired land, if reenter
the
land
and
get possession
unauthorizedly
instead
of
taking
appropriate action in law for ousting such
unauthorized occupants, State would be
justified in accepting their demand of
compensation again, at an exorbitant rate,
on the pretext of maintenance of law and
order.

35. The Committee as directed
above, shall be constituted within 10 days
from today and shall make inquiry and
submit report within three months. Such
report shall be submitted to this Court
with the affidavit of Chief Secretary, as
directed above for further action in the
matter."

11. The High Powered Committee
consisted of Special Secretary/Additional
Legal Remembrancer, Law Department,
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti
Corruption Cell), Lucknow and the Special
Secretary, Department of Revenue, State
Government
submitted
their
Enquiry
Report dated 06.3.2017 which was placed
on record by Chief Secretary along with
his affidavit sworn on 09.3.2014.

12. The summary of the conclusions
of Committee on the four issues which are
mentioned in the order dated 9.10.2017
passed by this Court, are as follows:

"On the first issue as to
whether when the land had been
acquired and compensation had been
determined under the provisions of Land
Acquisition
Act,
18942,
it
was
permissible for the Authorities to again
pay compensation from the public
exchequer to the erstwhile land owners
at an exorbitant rate and that too at a
rate which was applicable after more
than two decades of the acquisition, the
finding recorded by the Committee is
that it was not permissible to do so and
that
it
was
not
permissible
to
subsequently take recourse to the
provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act
when the award had already been made
under Section 11(1) of the Act.
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Regarding the second issue as to
whether the market value of the land on
the date Section 4(1) of the Act notification
was issued was Rs. 721 per sq. mtrs., the
Committee has recorded a finding that
Rs. 721/- per sq. mtrs. was not the market
rate when Section 4(1) notification was
issued on 9 March 1991 and in fact it was
the circle rate prevailing in 2014.

Regarding the third issue as to
why the District Administration did not
take any effective steps to dispossess the
unauthorized
occupants
when
the
possession of the land was taken in 1993,
the finding of the Committee is that
though the possession of the land was
given to UPSIDC in 1993 but as the
UPSIDC failed to make use of the land
for a substantially long period, it gave an
opportunity to the farmers to re-enter the
land and do farming and thereby create a
situation
for
them
to
make
an
unreasonable demand.
In regard to the fourth issue as to who are
the persons/authorities responsible for
permitting the erstwhile tenure holders of
the acquired land to continue in an
unauthorized possession of the land, the
Committee has recorded a finding that as
since only names of the officers of
UPSIDC posted at Head Office UPSIDC,
Regional Offices at Ghaziabad, Aligarh,
Kanpur and the names of Officers of the
Electricity Division, Kanpur, it was not
possible to specify the officers responsible
because of lack of information supplied
by the Department. The Committee has,
however, observed that those officers who
were posted in UPSIDC for five years
after possession was given to UPSIDC
1993, should be held responsible. The
Committee has also noted that the officers
continued consultation with the farmers
for payment of compensation instead of
getting the First Appeals filed in the High
Court against the award made by the
Reference Court decided."
(Emphasis added)

13. This Court while taking a serious
note of the abovementioned conclusions,
directed to implead THDCIL vide order
dated 09.10.2017. Thereafter, the matter
was adjourned on many dates in order to
complete the pleadings. In another order
dated 31.10.2017 passed by this Court,
seven writ petitions were also directed to
be connected along with the leading Writ
Petition No.31586 of 2016.

14.

By
another
order
dated
06.11.2019, after taking note of the
Enquiry Report and other developments,
the matter was directed to be placed before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice with the request
to constitute a bench headed by the Judge
who had passed earlier order. Accordingly,
this bench was constituted to decide the
present bunch of writ petitions. In all the
writ
petitions
pleadings
have
been
exchanged.

15. In the leading writ petition,
certain affidavits were also filed, latest
being supplementary counter affidavit
filed by the respondent no.4 on 3.1.2020,
which is taken on record.

16. Shri. Raghvendra Singh, learned
Advocate General assisted by Shri.Ajeet
Singh,
Senior
Advocate,
Additional
Advocate General has submitted that due
to peculiar circumstances prevailing in the
concerned villages, great resentment was
shown by villagers and due to their
interference, possession of land was not
transferred to the beneficiaries. He further
vehemently submitted that there was no
option left with the State Government
except to pay ex-gratia amount to the
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
villagers in order to get land vacated from
villagers.
He
has
relied
upon
a
supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent no.1 on 06.11.2019
sworn
on
05.11.2019.
The
relevant
paragraphs of the said affidavit are
reproduced hereinafter:

"That in between years 1993 and
1995, land measuring 392.317 hectare
(969.415 Acre) in village Dashara Kherli
pargana and Tehsil Khurja, District
Bulandshahr and in another village
Jahanpur, Naiphal @ Unchagaon and
Rukanpur
Tehsil
Khurja
district
bulandshahr, was acquired by the State
Government for Industrial Development
(Growth Centre).

That in the aforesaid villages,
after issuance of the Notification under
Sections 4 (1)/17 and 6 (1)/17 of Land
Acquisition Act, after due publication in
the local daily newspapers and after
hearing the affected farmers under Section
9 (1) (3), determination of compensation
under Section 11 (1) of Land Acquisition
Act were done on 22.10.1993, 15.10.1993,
16.10.1993 and 31.10.1995 respectively.
The compensation as per the award and in
few cases after decision of the court the
amount has already been paid to the
farmers.

That at the time of declaration of
award, the physical possession of acquired
land of all the four villages referred to
above was transferred to U.P. State
Industrial
Development
Corporation
(UPSIDC) and after deleting the names of
farmers over the acquired land, the name
of U.P. State Industrial Development
Corporation (State Government) was also
recorded and mutated in revenue records.

That the said land was provided
to the UPSIDC, but no development work
was done by the UPSIDC on the land for
quite some time and thereafter in the year
2011, it was provided to the THDC for
setting up Super Thermal Power Plant
(2x660 MW). When THDC started work at
site,the farmers put resistance and started
demanding higher compensation.

That since few days earlier,
unfortunate incident of violence had
taken place at Bhatta Parsaul, Greater
Noida while taking possession on the
acquired land, the State Government and
other officers of the UPSIDC and Power
Corporation took a decision to settle the
matter after discussing with the farmers
by negotiation in the meeting at district
level.

That
pursuant
to
above
decision, matter was negotiated by the
District Officers, officers of THDC and
Power
Corporation,
wherein
THDC
agreed to pay some more amount as Exgratia at the rate of Rs.721/- per sq.
meter. The farmers had also agreed on
the same.

That since the amount was to be
paid by the THDC, the State Government
did not raise any objection.

That the THDC India Ltd.
Transferred the amount required for this
land including aforementioned Ex-gratia
amount after approval of (Ministry Of
Power, Government of India) Public
Investment Board through RTGS in the
account of SLAO, Bulandshahr.

That in the matter of Ex-gratia
payment no financial aid by the State
Government is given, and role of the
State Government/District Magistrate is
only to ensure and disburse the payment
of Ex-gratia amount to the farmers
through RTGS out of Ex-gratia amount
made by THDC India Limited.

That
Ex-gratia
payment
deposited by the THDC has also been paid
to 1582 farmers and now only 142 farmers
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are left to whom the Ex-gratia amount has
not been paid and only they are creating
obstruction in the construction of Thermal
Power Project.

That the State Government did
not object for the enhanced payment
because the matter was settled by the
THDC itself and the THDC had also
agreed to pay the Ex-gratia payment.

That the THDC is still ready to
make payment and rather it has already
deposited the amount in the account of
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer,
Bulandsahar."
(Emphasis added)

17. Shri. H.N.Singh, learned Senior
Counsel
assisted
by
Shri
Prabhakar
Awasthi, Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent no.4 forcefully submitted that
actual possession was not given to the
respondent no.4 on any part of land which
remained occupied by the villagers. He has
relied upon certain communications in
order to show that respondent no.4,
repeatedly, intimated authorities to get the
land vacated from villagers. However, no
action was taken. He has relied upon a
supplementary counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent no.4 sworn on
2.1.2020. The relevant part of the said
supplementary
counter
affidavit
is
reproduced hereinafter:

"That from the fact stated above
it is apparent that it was well informed by
the corporation to the Government as well
as to the T.H.D.C. India Ltd. And it is also
noticed by the Government as well as by
the T.H.D.C. that the Corporation has not
get the actual physical possession of the
acquired land though the land stood
recorded with the name of the Corporation
in
the
Government
records.
The
Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as
T.H.D.C. India Ltd. knowing fully well that
actual possession of the land was not
available to the Corporation and there is a
Memorandum of Understanding between
the T.H.D.C. and the Government of Uttar
Pradesh to make available the land of the
Corporation to T.H.D.C. India Ltd. and if
it is not possible then to acquire land as
per the acquisition policies of the State
Government and this Memorandum of
Understanding was entered on 31.12.2010
without knowing to the Corporation the
Government of Uttar Pradesh by its own
has proceeded to negotiate in the matter
for making available to the land to
T.H.D.C. for the purpose of project and
for that purpose to negotiate with the
farmers to deliver the possession on
agreed
rate
which
was
ultimately
negotiated @ 721 per Sqa. Meter.

That the Corporation was one
of the party at the instance of the
Government to negotiate with the farmers
as land was originally acquired for the
Corporation but virtually in absence of
the
actual
physical
possession
the
provision of Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act stood attracted and the
State Government with the farmers for
taking the land under the agreement and
that power was exercised by the State
Government under Section 11 (2) of the
Land Acquisition Act.

That in the entire proceeding
the U.P.S.I.D.C. was to get back the
amount already paid with interest and all
the cost of acquisition with interest if
payable and all legal cost was to be paid
by the T.H.D.C. India Ltd.

That under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act land may be acquired for
public purpose or for Company. The
public purpose has been defined under
Section 3 F of the Land Acquisition Act
which include in Clause IV of the land for
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
371
the Corporation owned or controlled by
the State. The Corporation owned and
controlled by the Government is defined
under Section 3 CC means nobody
corporate established by or under the
Central Provincial or State Act and
includes a Government Company has
defined
under
Section
617
of
the
Companies Act, 1956.

That
U.P.
State
Industrial
Development
Corporation
is
a
Government Company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 and is fully
owned and controlled by the State
Government and as such the acquisition of
the land for public purpose or for
company includes for the Corporation
which is a Company registered under the
Companies Act.

That the State Government may
acquired
for
public
purpose
which
includes
Corporation
owned
and
controlled by the State Government i.e.
Government Companies registered under
the Companies Act and once the land is
acquired for the Corporation the same will
fully vested in the Corporation and the
villages of collector/Special Land Officer
or other revenue authorities work for
taken for acquisition and to deliver the
possession and once the land is acquired
the same stood vested free from all
encumbrances in the Corporation under
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act.
That Section 11(2) provided that the land
may be acquired and compensation may
be paid under the agreement and such
agreement is not required to be registered
under Section 11 (4). The award is a
decree as provided under Section 26(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act and as such once
the award is made and compensation was
paid, possession was taken, no further
registration or stamp is required if the
acquisition is for public purpose and the
Company. Section 50 of the Land
Acquisition Act provides that in case of the
acquisition on the case of the local
authority or being the company may
adduce the evidence for the determination
of compensation and Section 51 grant
exemption from taking of stamp on award
or agreement made under the Land
Acquisition Act.

That with the acquisition of the
land in favour of the Corporation same
stood vested in the Corporation and
complete title of the land acquired stood
transfer and Corporation is full owner and
was competent to transfer the subject to
getting actual physical possession. The
Corporation in detail has entered at
various stages to the Government, District
Administration and the T.H.D.C. that the
Corporation is not in actual physical
possession of the complete land and the
land may be transferred only after getting
the possession from the farmers for which
the Government of Uttar Pradesh has
accepted to enter into negotiation with the
farmers for getting the possession and by
the
Corporation
and
so
that
the
Corporation may be in position to transfer
the land to T.H.D.C.

That at the instance of the
Government of Uttar Pradesh the District
Magistrate,
Bulandshahar
and
its
authorities have made all effort for
holding
various
meetings
with
the
farmers
and
ultimately
District
Administration with the approval of the
State Government, entered into an
agreement with the farmers for payment
of compensation so that the farmers may
hand
over
the
possession
to
the
Corporation.

That
in
entire
proceeding
Corporation had not at all failed and
Corporation has no means of taking
forcibly possession and admittedly the
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
District Administration taken of the
forcibly possession on the rate of which
the award was passed will create position
of the law and order. The Corporation
has no objection in transferring the land
on the rate awarded by the Court if the
State Government is in position to hand
over the actual physical possession to the
Corporation taking the same from the
farmers otherwise the Corporation is to
transfer on the rate agreed by the State
Government through its agencies with the
farmers and the said amount accepted by
the T.H.D.C. subject to return all the
amount already paid by the Corporation
with interest."
(Emphasis added)

18. We have also heard Shri Sanjay
Kumar
Mishra,
learned
counsel
for
petitioners, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General and Sri H.N.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Prabhaker Awasthi, learned counsel
for respondent-4 and Sri Ajeet Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted
by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned
counsel for respondents- 1 and 3 in the
leading writ petition as well as in other
connected writ petitions.

19. The High Powered Committee
constituted in pursuance of the order
passed by this Court submitted report on
06.3.2017 which was filed along with the
affidavit of Chief Secretary, Government
of U.P. sworn on 09.3.2017. It is relevant
to note here that the conclusions of
enquiry
were
neither
disputed
nor
challenged by any of the respondents. The
report has dealt with all the issues which
were referred in the order dated 29.8.2016
passed by this Court. It is essential to
mention the conclusion of the Committee
on each of the issues which are as follows:

Point no.1

Where
land
acquired
and
compensation determined and paid
under
Act,
1894,
whether
it
is
permissible for authorities to again pay
compensation from public exchequer to
erstwhile land owners at an exorbitant
rate and that too at a rate which is
applicable after more than two decades
from acquisition notification under
Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued;

"प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में न्धथिकत पूणमतः
स्पष्ट है कक भूकम अकधग्रहण के सम्बि में
अन्तगमत धारा 11(1) एवाडम क घोिणा कविेि
भूकम अध्यान्धि अकधकार द्वारा सुनवाई का
अवसर प्रिान कर सक्षम स्तर के अनुमोिन से
क गय है और उक्त एवाडम से असोंतुष्ट
प्रभाकवत कृिकोों द्वारा अकधकनयम के अन्तगमत
अनुमन्य कवकधक उपचार अन्तगमत धारा 18
रेफरेन्स भ सक्षम न्यायालय में योकजत ककया
गया
।
इसके
अकतररक्त
यू०प ०एस०आई०ड ०स ० द्वारा रेफरेन्स में
कनणीत एवाडम के सम्बि में अप ल भ मा०
उच्च न्यायालय में योकजत क गय है। उक्त से
यह भ स्पष्ट है कक प्रकरण में धारा 11(2) के
प्राकवधान आककिमत नह ों हैं क्योोंकक सम्पूणम
कायमवाह अन्तगमत धारा 11(1) के अन्तगमत
अग्रसाररत रह । जहााँ तक उ०प्र० भूकम अजमन
(करार द्वारा प्रकतकर क अवधारणा और
अकधकनणमय क घोिणा) कनयमावल 1997 का
प्रश्न
है
तो
उक्त
कनयमावल
प्रिमतः
अकधसूचना क कतकि 16 कसतम्बर 1997 से
लागू है और प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में धारा 11(2) के
लागू न होने के दृकष्टगत कनयमावल के लागू
होने का प्रश्न ह नह ों है।

यह भ स्पष्ट है कक जब धारा 4(1)
सपकित धारा 17 के अन्तगमत भूकम अकधग्रह त
क जात है तब अकधसूचना के किनाोंक से
आच्छाकित भूकम समस्त भारोों से मुक्त होकर
सरकार में पूणमतः कनकहत हो जात है। तत्पश्चात्
4 All. Kamal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
मात्र प्रकतकर का उकचत कनधामरण का प्रश्न िेि
रहता है। जब आपस सहमकत से प्रकतकर
कनधामरण नह ों होत है तब प्रकतकर के कनधामरण
के कलये अन्तगमत धारा 11(1) क कायमवाह भूकम
अध्यान्धि अकधकार द्वारा क जात है। घोकित
एवाडम से यकि कृिक असोंतुष्ट है तो वे धारा 18
के अन्तगमत कजला न्यायालय में रेफरेन्स
कलक्टर के माध्यम से कर सकते हैं एवों यहााँ से
भ असोंतुष्ट होने पर मा० उच्च न्यायालय एवों
मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय क िरण में जा सकते
हैं। स्पष्ट है कक इस प्रकिया में धारा 11(1) क
कायमवाह के पश्चात् धारा 11(2) के अन्तगमत
अकग्रम कायमवाह के पश्चात् धारा 11(2) के
अन्तगमत अकग्रम कायमवाह ककये जाने का कोई
कवकल्प नह ों है। स्पष्ट है कक धारा 11(2) के
प्रकवधान के अन्तगमत आपस सहमकत से एवाडम
क घोिणा क जात है कजसे प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में
एवाडम के थिान पर एक्स-ग्रेकिया का नाम किया
गया है, जो मान्य नह ों है। अतः उपरोक्त प्रकिया
से कवचकलत होकर एक बार प्रकतकर के
कनधामरण के उपरान्त पुनः प्रकतकर का कनधामरण
कवकधक नह ों माना जा सकता है।"

Point No.2.

Whether acquired land had
market value for the purpose of
compensation at Rs.721/- per square
metere on the date when notification
under Section 4 of Act, 1894 was issued
particularly when in this regard awards
by district Judge under Section 18 of
Act, 1894 have already been made
determining much lesser value;

"प्रकरण में ट ०एच०ड ०स ० के आने
के उपरान्त कवकभन्न वातामओों के पश्चात् किनाोंक12-82014 को यू०प ०एस०आई०ड ०स ० के प्रबि
कनिेिक, श्र मनोज कुमार कसोंह के पत्र सोंख्या
132/एसआईड स /आर०एम० सूरजपुर कैम्प द्वारा
कजलाकधकार बुलन्दिहर को अवगत कराया गया
कक काश्तकारोों से वाताम के पश्ताच् रू० 721/- प्रकत
वगम म टर क िर से आम सहमकत बन है एवों इस
धनराकि को ट ०एच०ड ०स ० से प्राि कर
एक्सग्रेकसया के रूप में कवतररत ककया जाना है।

कजलाकधकार ,
बुलोंििहर
द्वारा
तथ्यात्मक आख्या में उन्धिन्धित ककया गया है कक
ग्राम ििहरा िेरल व रूकनपुर क अकजमत भूकम
राष्टर य राजमागम ज ०ट ० रोड के िोनोों ओर न्धथित है
तिा इन ग्रामोों में सड़क के ककनारे क भूकम का
समझौते के समय रूपये 1120/- प्रकत वगम टर तिा
ग्राम जहॉनपुर एवों नायफल उफम ऊाँचागााँव में 800/-
रूपये प्रकत वगम टर के स्टाम्प िर कृकि उपयोग के
कलए कनधामररत िा। कनधामररत स्टाम्प िर से कम िर
रूपये 721/- प्रकत वगम म टर पर ह कृिकोों से
सहमकत प्राि क गई। उक्त से स्पष्ट है कक
अकधग्रह त भूकम बाजारू मूल्य रूपये 721/- प्रकत
वगम टर क िर अन्तगमत धारा-4 अकधसूचना क
कतकि पर नह ों िा। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है कक रू०
721/- क िर विम 2014 क है न कक अकधसूचना के
प्रकािन किनाोंक 09.03.1991 क ।"

Point No.3

If possession was taken over of
acquired land in 1993, why District
Administration did not take any effective
steps to dispossess unauthorized occupants.

"सकमकत ने थिान य प्रिासन, यू०प ०
एस०आई०ड ०स ० व ट ०एच०ड ०स ० द्वारा
उपलब्ध कराये गये समस्त सुसोंगत अकभलेिोों
के सम्यक पररि लन से यह थिाकपत पाया है
कक वस्तुतः अन्तगमत धारा-17 अजेंस क्लाज में
अकधग्रहण
के
उपरान्त
भ
यू०प ०
एस०आई०ड ०स ० का रवैया अकधग्रह त भूकम
के तात्काकलक उपयोग/उपभोग के सम्बि में
उिास न रहा। कजलाकधकार , बुलोंिसिहर क
आख्या किनाोंक 12-06-1997 में भ उिेि है
कक सोंिकभमत भूकम का कब्जा यद्यकप िमिः 1510-93, 16-10-93, 08-10-93 व 07-10-93 को
कवकधक रूप से थिानाोंतररत ककया जा चुका है
परन्तु
भूकम
का
उपयोग
यू०
प ०एस०आई०ड ०स ० द्वारा गत लम्बे समय से
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
न करने के कारण ककसान मौके पर िेत कर
रहे हैं।

यू० प ० एस० आई० ड ० स ० के
असकारात्मक रवैये के कारण अकधग्रह त भूकम
पर 1993 में ह कब्जा प्राि करने के उपरान्त
कोई कायमवाह नह ों करने से प्रभाकवत ककसानोों
को अवसर प्राि हुआ कक वह अकधग्रह त भूकम
पर पुनः प्रवेि कर सके और भकवष्य में
पररन्धथियााँ इतन प्रकतकूल हो गई कक कबना
उनके अनुकचत मॉग को स्व कार ककये उक्त
अकधग्रकहत
भूकम
का
उपयोग/उपभोग
यू०प ०एस०आई०ड ०स ० द्वारा ककया जाना
सम्भव नह ों हो पाया।

उपरोक्त क गय कायमवाह से
कवकित होता है कक अनकधकृत कृिकोों को
अकधग्रकहत भूकम से हटाने के कलये मात्र कागज
पर पत्राचार ककया गया। इस अवकध में
यू०प ०एस०आई०़ ड ०स ० क तरफ से भूकम
पर कायम आरम्भ कराने क दृढ़ ईच्छा-िन्धक्त
का अभाव पररलकक्षत हुआ।"

Point No.4

Who
are
the
persons/authorities
responsible
to
permit
continued
unauthorized
possession of erstwhile tenure holders
over acquired land and thereby creating
a situation where Farmers re-entered
the land and Administration found itself
handicapped to dispossess them without
accepting their demand.