# Rameshwar Das Gupta & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 613
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-04-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22113 of 2014
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Naheed Ara Moonis
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshwar-das-gupta-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42852
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Right to fair compensation and transparency
in
land
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013-Section 24-claim of
fair
compensation-land
acquired
by
notification u/s 4-on 17.09.96-notification
under section 6 issued on 28.10.96compensation received as per Rule 1997 on
05.02.01-claim
based
upon
ground-no
physical possession taken-and petitioners
are still in actual possession-except certain
photographs no documents produced-heldafter receiving amount of award based
upon
agreement
possession
of
state
government itself presumed-if possession
retain petitioner-deemed dishonest can not
invoke writ jurisdiction-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-9
We are further of the view that in case the
petitioners had not handed over the
possession after the Award had been
passed even after receiving compensation
and also did not challenge the said
proceedings before any competent court or
authority by not handing over possession of
the land, the petitioners had clearly not
conducted themselves properly and had
proceeded with a dishonest intention. Such
being the position, the petitioners would
not be entitled to any relief under the extra
ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

## Text

2 All] Rameshwar Das Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
613
and that of the vendor decreased in an
undivided
holding.
Hence
no
fragmentation resulted and the holding
remained the same.

14. The plea of fragmentation
cannot be accepted for another reason.
For this plea to succeed it is also required
to be proved that the sale was of a
fragment in a consolidated area. There is
nothing on record that consolidation
operations had taken place prior to the
execution of the sale deed on 11.2.1964.

15. In view of aforesaid discussion
the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner have no force.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed at the admission
stage.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22113 of 2014

Rameshwar Das Gupta & Anr..Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pankaj Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Right to fair compensation and transparency
in
land
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013-Section 24-claim of
fair
compensation-land
acquired
by
notification u/s 4-on 17.09.96-notification
under section 6 issued on 28.10.96compensation received as per Rule 1997 on
05.02.01-claim
based
upon
ground-no
physical possession taken-and petitioners
are still in actual possession-except certain
photographs no documents produced-heldafter receiving amount of award based
upon
agreement
possession
of
state
government itself presumed-if possession
retain petitioner-deemed dishonest can not
invoke writ jurisdiction-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-9
We are further of the view that in case the
petitioners had not handed over the
possession after the Award had been
passed even after receiving compensation
and also did not challenge the said
proceedings before any competent court or
authority by not handing over possession of
the land, the petitioners had clearly not
conducted themselves properly and had
proceeded with a dishonest intention. Such
being the position, the petitioners would
not be entitled to any relief under the extra
ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Ramendra
Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing
for
respondent
no.4-Greater
Noida
Industrial Development Authority and
have perused the record.

2. The admitted case of the
petitioners is that by notification dated
17.9.1996 issued under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") and the
subsequent notification dated 28.10.1996
issued under section 6 of the Act, the land
of the petitioners was acquired by the
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
State Government for respondent no.4.
Then as per the Award dated 5.2.2001
passed on the basis of agreement entered
into
under
Land
Acquisition
(Determination of Compensation and
Declaration of Award by Agreement)
Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Rules of 1997"), the petitioners had
been paid compensation as per the
agreement. In the said Award itself, which
has become final, it has been categorically
stated that the possession of the land has
been taken from the petitioners on
20.1.1998. It is admitted to the petitioners
that the compensation has been duly paid
to them.

3. Now after a gap of about 18 years
of the notifications, 16 years after the
possession of the land has been taken and
13 years after the Award which was
passed
on
the
basis
of
a
compromise/agreement under the Rules of
1997, which compensation has been
accepted by the petitioners, this writ
petition has been filed claiming benefit of
Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (in short, "Act of 2013").

4. For ready reference, section 24 of
the Act of 2013 is reproduced below:-

"24. Land acquisition process under
Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have
lapsed
in
certain
cases.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),-

(a) where no award under section 11
of the said Land Acquisition Act has been
made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating
to
the
determination
of
compensation shall apply; or

(b) where an award under said
section 11 has been made, then such
proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the said Land Acquisition
Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section(1), in case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an
award under the said section 11 has been
made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or
the compensation has not been paid the said
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed
and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of
such land acquisition afresh in accordance
with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been
made and compensation in respect of a
majority of land holdings has not been
deposited in the account of the beneficiaries,
then, all beneficiaries specified in the
notification for acquisition under section 4 of
the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with
the provisions of this Act."

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that actual physical
possession of the land has not been taken
from the petitioners and as such since the
Award in the case was made on 5.2.2001,
which was more than five years prior to
the commencement of Act of 2013 (which
came into force on 1.1.2014) and the
actual physical possession of the land has
not been taken, the petitioners would be
2 All] Smt. Kumkum Vs. Sri Arvinder Singh Bagga @ Bablu & Ors.
615
entitled to the benefit of sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act of 2013.

6. Except for merely stating in
paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the
petitioners are still in actual physical
possession of the entire land which is still
lying vacant and filing of some photographs
said to be relating to the land in question,
there is no proper evidence in the form of
any document like Khasra etc. to show that
the petitioners still continue in possession of
the land.

7.

Even
otherwise,
once
the
compensation has been awarded and paid to
the petitioners on the basis of an agreement
executed under the Rules of 1997, it would
be presumed that the possession of the land
has been taken over from the petitioners. It is
not a case where a normal Award has been
passed and thereafter the petitioners had been
litigating with regard to the possession being
taken from them. Here is a case where after
the Award was passed, wherein it was
mentioned that the possession of the land has
been taken on 20.1.1998, the petitioners kept
silent and had accepted the amount awarded
and did not dispute the fact at any stage that
the possession of the land had not been taken
from them, although specifically mentioned
to be so in the Award itself.

8. As such, we are of the firm view
that in the circumstances, the petitioners
cannot be given the benefit of the
provisions of the Act of 2013. Their claim
that they continued in possession of the
land even after receiving compensation
under the Award, which mentions about
the taking over of possession of the land
from the petitioners, does not deserve to
be accepted. Finality has to be given to a
proceeding/transaction at some stage. In
the present case, the transaction had been
completed once a compromise/agreement
had been entered into between the parties and
award was passed, which was accepted by
the petitioner. After accepting compensation
under the award, the petitioners cannot turn
around after more than a decade and say that
possession (as already mentioned in the
award) was not given by or taken from them.

9. We are further of the view that in
case the petitioners had not handed over the
possession after the Award had been passed
even after receiving compensation and also
did not challenge the said proceedings before
any competent court or authority by not
handing over possession of the land, the
petitioners had clearly not conducted
themselves properly and had proceeded with
a dishonest intention. Such being the
position, the petitioners would not be entitled
to any relief under the extra ordinary
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the
petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as
we are of the opinion that the provisions
of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would
not be attracted in the facts of the present
case. This writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22619 of 2014

Smt. Kumkum ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Arvinder Singh Bagga @ Bablu & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: