# Manveer Singh and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 875
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-08-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43250 of 2000
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manveer-singh-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39166
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act- section 3- even
assuming
that
there
was
some
construction on the land in question, this
Court
cannot
interfere
with
the
acquisition because the word 'land' in
section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act
includes 'Buildings and trees' also. Hence
even assuming that the land was abadi
or there were constructions on the land
in question, in our opinion the said land
can
be
acquired
under
the
Land
Acquisition Act and this Court cannot
interfere.

Held in para 19

Moreover, we are of the opinion that in
fact the land in question was agricultural
land and it was only after the notification
under Section 4 that the petitioner tried
to give a colour that the land was abadi
and there were constructions.
Case Law referred:
AIR 1971 SC 1033,
(1986) 4 SCC 251, (1996) 10 SCC 721, 1991
AWC 1210, 1989 AWC 1137, (1991) AWC 341,
AIR 1969 SC 255, 1980 ACJ 583

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Aaisha Siddique V. Senior Terminal Manager, IOC Terminal and anotherher 875
petitioner did not reach in time to submit
her tender it cannot be accepted.

4. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD OCTOBER 9, 2002

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43250 of 2000

Manveer Singh and another ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.G. Hasnain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act- section 3- even
assuming
that
there
was
some
construction on the land in question, this
Court
cannot
interfere
with
the
acquisition because the word 'land' in
section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act
includes 'Buildings and trees' also. Hence
even assuming that the land was abadi
or there were constructions on the land
in question, in our opinion the said land
can
be
acquired
under
the
Land
Acquisition Act and this Court cannot
interfere.

Held in para 19

Moreover, we are of the opinion that in
fact the land in question was agricultural
land and it was only after the notification
under Section 4 that the petitioner tried
to give a colour that the land was abadi
and there were constructions.
Case Law referred:
AIR 1971 SC 1033,
(1986) 4 SCC 251, (1996) 10 SCC 721, 1991
AWC 1210, 1989 AWC 1137, (1991) AWC 341,
AIR 1969 SC 255, 1980 ACJ 583

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

1. This writ petition alongwith
connected writ petition no. 3301 of 2001
are being disposed of by a common
judgment.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

3. The petitioners had challenged the
impugned notification dated 21.11.1996
published
by
public
notice
dated
24.8.1999 under Section 4 (1) of the Land
Acquisition Act and the notification dated
23.8.2000 published through public notice
dated 23.8.2000 under Section 6/17 of the
Land Acquisition Act vide Annexure 7
and 10 to the writ petition. The petitioners
have also prayed for mandamus directing
the respondent not to proceed in the
matter of acquisition proceedings and not
to demolish the constructions on the land
in dispute.

4. The petitioner no. 1 claims to be
owner of plot no. 30 and the petitioner no.
2 of plot no. 31 in village Wajidpur,
paragana and Tahsil Khurja, district
Bulandshahr. It is alleged in paragraph 3
of the writ petition that the said land has
been used by the petitioners as abadi land.
The Khasra entries are Annexure 1 and 2
to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the
writ petition it is alleged that the
petitioners have raised constructions over
the said land and then sought permission
to change the nature of the land under
Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.
On the application of the petitioner the
S.D.M., Khurja after receiving report of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
the Tahsildar and other officers of the
revenue department passed an order dated
12.8.1999 declaring the land ask abadi
land. True copies of the orders in this
connection are Annexure 3 and 4 to the
writ petition. After declaration of the land
as abadi land they were recorded as such
in the revenue record vide Annexure 5
and 6.

5. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition
it is alleged that the State Government
issued a notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act on 21.11.1996
alleged to have been published on
21.11.1996 and also in two daily
newspapers, 'Rashtriya Sahara' and 'Danik
Jagran' on 21.12.1996 and 5.8.1998 and
the said declaration has been mentioned in
the public notice dated 24.8.1999 and
notification was issued under Section 4/17
of the Act through the aforesaid notice.
True copy of the public notice is
Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The said
notice/ declaration dated 24.8,.1999 states
that the land is sought to be acquired for
construction of a market yard for Mandi
Samiti, Khurja.

6. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition
it is alleged that according to the public
notice dated 24.8.1999 it has been
declared that the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was notified on 21.11.1996 which was
published in the gazette dated 21.11.1996
and
thereafter
published
in
two
newspapers on 21.12.1996 and thereafter
on 5.4.1998. However, the public notice
has been made only on 24.8.1999 and
hence it is alleged that there was no
urgency for dispensing with Section 5-A
of the Act. It is also alleged that there was
no public purpose for the acquisition.

7. In paragraph 11 of the writ
petition it is alleged that the petitioners
made representation to the Director, Land
Acquisition on 28.9.1999 stating that
there were constructions over the land in
question which is abadi land. True copy
of the representation is Annexure 8 to the
writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ
petition it is alleged that on the
representation of the petitioner, the
Director, Land Acquisition sought a
report from the Collector with regard to
the site and nature of the plots. The
revenue authorities made an inspection
and submitted a report on 24.2.2000 in
respect of the said plots and other plots..
In this report it has been mentioned that
the said plots are abadi. True copy of the
report is Annexure 9 to the writ petition.
In paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is
alleged that the some other plots can be
acquired instead of the plots of the
petitioners.

8. In paragraph 14 of the writ
petition it is alleged that despite the report
of the revenue authorities the Collector,
Bulandshahr published a public notice on
23.8.2000 under Section 6/17 of the Act,
copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ
petition. The said notice has been
published in two newspapers.

9. In paragraph 15 of the writ
petition it is alleged that all the
proceedings prescribed under Section
6/17 of the Act were done simultaneously
on the same day i.e. 23.8.2000 and hence
this procedure is illegal. In paragraph 16
of the writ petition it is alleged that the
newspapers in which the said notice under
Section 6/17 of the Act were published
are not widely circulated newspapers and
all the acquisition proceedings are not for
public purpose. In paragraph 18 of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Manveer Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others 877
writ petition it is alleged that no gazette
publication has been made of the notice
under Section 6 and the procedure under
the said provision has not been followed
and the proceedings have lapsed as they
are beyond the prescribed time.

10. Two counter affidavits have
been filed in this case. In the counter
affidavit
on
behalf
of
the
State
Government it is stated in paragraph 5
thereof that the petitioner had tried to get
the land in dispute declared as abadi but
the S.D.M. has subsequently set aside the
order declaring the land as abadi. The
order of the S.D.M. dated 14.9.2000
setting aside the earlier order dated
12.8.1999 declaring the land as abadi is
Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit.
In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that the publication of the gazette
notification under Section 4 of the Act
was made on 21.12.1996 and 5.4.1998
and the general information was made on
24.8.1999. The delay has occurred due to
the fact that the acquiring body has made
available the necessary amount only on
12.8.1999. However, the urgency was
already existing and hence the notification
under Section 6 was issued well within
time.

11. In paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit it is alleged that the S.D.M. has
himself inspected the spot and passed the
order dated 14.9.2000 referred to above.
The petitioner has not shown any
permission from any competent authority
for
sanction
of
the
map
for
the
construction. At the time of the initial
notification under Section 4 the land was
recorded as agricultural land. The order
under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act
was passed after the initial notification
under Section 4 and even that order has
subsequently been set aside as stated
above. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the
gazette notification was published on
23.8.2000 and the notification was also
published in two newspapers on the same
day. It is stated that the simultaneous
publication does not vitiate the acquisition
proceedings. True copy of the U.P.
Gazette
notification
dated
23.8.2000
under section 4(1) read with section 17 of
the Land Acquisition Act is Annexure CA
2. In paragraph 13 it is denied that there
was any bungling. It is further stated that
the newspapers in which the notices were
published are widely circulated in the
locality. The public notice was also given
on 23.8.2000 and the same was also made
available to the Gram Pradhan on the
same day. All this was done as the matter
was important and the proceedings would
have lapsed if the publication under
Section 6 would not have been done well
within time. In paragraph 14 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the
publication of the notification under
Section 6 was in accordance with law. In
paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it is
stated that all the legal formalities
regarding the publication were complied
with. In paragraph 16 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the substance of
the notice was made available to the
Gram Pradhan on 28.3.2000. It is alleged
that the entire acquisition proceedings are
in
accordance
with
law.
The
two
newspapers publications are annexure CA
3 and 4 to the counter affidavit.

12. In paragraph 18 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the acquiring
body was made available the requisite
money, and hence on making available
the
requisite
money
the
necessary
publication under Section 4 was made on
24.8.1999 and thereafter a proposal was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
sent to the Director, Land Acquisition by
the Collector, Bulandshahr on 10.9.1999.
Some time was taken by the Director and
the State Government before the final
publication under section 6 but it is well
within the time. In paragraph 25 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that the public
notice dated 28.3.2000 under section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act is in accordance
with law. In paragraph 27 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the land in
dispute is agricultural land and the
petitioner wants to take illegal advantage
by saying that he has raised constructions.
In paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit it
is stated that the Mandi Samiti, Khurja is
facing great difficulty in carrying out its
activities.

13. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of the Mandi Samiti,
Khurja. In paragraph 3 of the same it is
stated that the land has been acquired for
construction of the market yard of Mandi
Samiti, Khurja. The said construction of
market yard is urgent and the acquisition
is
for
planned
development.
The
provisions of Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act have been applied as it is
an urgent scheme which brooks no delay
because of the fact that the old existing
market yard was highly congested and
unable to handle the large arrivals of
agriculture produce. The existing market
yard lacks the facilities of storage,
parking etc, and it has outlived its utility.
Residential colonies have grown at the
place , and therefore there is crying need
to shift the whole sale trade from the old
market yard which is situate in a densely
populated area to a place outside the city
and construct a hygienic market yard.

14. In paragraph 5 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the land in
dispute was agricultural holding on the
date of the notification under Section 4 of
the Act. For the purpose of saving the
land
from
acquisition
or
claiming
exorbitant compensation, the petitioner
moved an application under Section 143
of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, and the
S.D.M. without making proper enquiry
allowed the application and declared the
land as abadi. However, when the Mandi
Samiti came to know about that order it
moved an application and on that
application the S.D.M. by the order dated
14.9.2000 has cancelled his earlier order.

15. In paragraph 7 it is stated that
the land in dispute is not abadi. In
paragraph 8 it is stated that there is no
construction on the land in dispute but the
petitioner has built some boundary walls.
In paragraph 9 it is stated that the
notification under Section 4 was issued on
21.11.1996 and it was also published in
two newspapers on 21.12.1996 and
5.8.1998 but the last publication of the
notification was done by affixing public
notice at the place where the land in
dispute is situate on 24.8.1999. Therefor
the last publication of the notification
would be deemed to be 24.8.1999 and the
notification under Section 6 was issued on
23.8.2000. Hence the notification under
section 6 has been issued within one year
from
the
date
of
publication
of
notification under Section 4. The delay in
publication was due to the official lapses
and the would not affect the acquisition. It
is stated that there is urgency in the matter
as the market yard has to be constructed
soon. In paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit it is denied that the plots are
abadi site and have big rooms. In
paragraph 11 it is stated that the report
from the office of the Director of Land
Acquisition was manipulated and was a
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Manveer Singh and another V. State of U.P. and others 879
result of the political pressure to abandon
the land and acquire some other land,.
The land in question was selected by the
Committee
consisting
of
responsible
officers and it is more suitable land for
construction of a market yard. The
petitioner
would
get
adequate
compensation. It is denied that there are
houses and shops over the land in dispute.
The notification under Section 6 has been
issued on 23.8.2000 within one year from
the last publication of notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In
paragraph 12 it is stated that there is
nothing
illegal
in
simultaneous
publication. The acquisition would have
lapsed if the notification had not been
made in the gazette dated 23.8.2000. In
paragraph 14 it is stated that it is not
impossible to publish notification under
Section 6 simultaneously on 23.8.2000
and also get it published in two local
newspapers on the same day. There is no
improper motive involved and it is a
straightforward scheme of acquisition of
the land for the construction of market
yard.

16. We have also perused the
rejoinder affidavit.

In our opinion there is no merit in
this petition. The acquisition of the land
for the market yard of a Mandi Samiti is
clearly for a public purpose and there is
urgency as stated in the counter affidavit.
This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 15586 of 2001 Ram Charittar and
others vs. State of UP and others decided
on 4.10 .2002, following several decisions
of the Supreme Court and of this Court
has held that the Court cannot go into the
question whether the purpose for which
the land was needed is for public purpose
or not.
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 Devi 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 out 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 U.P.
and others 1991 AWC 1210 it was held
that where there is recital of urgency the
Court should not ordinarily interfere. In
M/s Garg Farms and others v. State of
U.P. and others 1989 AWC 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 v. 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 needed 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
vs. State of U.P. (1991) AWC 341.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
17. 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."

18. The above definition shows that
even building and trees will be deemed,
by a legal fiction, to be land for the
purpose of 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 vs. State of U.P., 1980 ACJ
583, etc. Hence it cannot be said that
when land is being sought to be acquired
the buildings or trees standing 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 buildings or trees,
or the land on which the building or trees
stands. If a contrary view is taken it can
disrupt the entire scheme for which the
acquisition is being done.

19. The allegations of the petitioner
that they had residential houses on the
land in dispute have been denied by the
respondents. The order declaring the land
in question as abadi has also been
subsequently cancelled by the SDM.
However even assuming that, there was
some construction on the land in question
this Court cannot interfere with the
acquisition because the word 'land' in
section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act
includes 'buildings and trees' also. Hence
even assuming that the land was abadi or
there were constructions on the land in
question, in our opinion, the said land can
be acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act and this Court cannot interfere.
Moreover, we are of the opinion that in
fact the land in question was agricultural
land and it was only after the notification
under Section 4 that the petitioner tried to
give colour that the land was abadi and
there were constructions.

20. In our opinion, there was no
illegality in the notification under Section
6 issued on 23.8.2000 as it was within one
year
from
the
publication
of
the
notification under Section 4 on 24.8.1999.

21. The construction of market yard
of Mandi Samiti is clearly for public
purpose as it will serve the agriculturists
and it is urgent.

22. Thus there is no merit in this
petition and it is dismissed accordingly..
No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.10.2002

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

Civil Misc. Petition No. 42383 of 2002

Badan Singh and another
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri K.G. Srivastava
Sri Rahul Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.