# Sri Mahesh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 415
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-22
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 6532 of 2006
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-mahesh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45966
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Sri
Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri R. Venkatramani, Sri
S.K. Mishra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Usha
Kiran, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, Sri Anurag Khanna

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) - Section 4 - Acquisition of land -
Challenge - Ground - land acquired for a
private
company
but
mandatory
procedure of Chapter VII r.w. Rules 1963
not followed - Held - Land acquired at the
instance of State Industrial Development
Corporation
Limited
(UPSIDCL)
which
forwarded land to Ambuja Cement Ltd (R5)- UPSIDCL, incorporated under Act as a
State Government company-its objective
to
acquire
land,
allot
land
to
entrepreneurs
for
promoting
industrialization
in
State-R-5
set
up
industrial unit for contributing to Govt.
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy of consuming fly ash- acquisition
not for benefit of private company - Part
VII not applicable where acquisition made
for a government company - Acquisition,
proper (69, 70,71)

B. Civil Law -Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894)-U.P.Land Acquisition (Determination
of Compensation and Declaration of Award
by Agreement) Rules, 1997 - Challenge to
Acquisition of land - petitioners accepted
enhanced compensation - without any
demur and objection - Held - Petitioners
barred from challenging acquisition (Para
72)

C. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) - Challenge to Acquisition of land -
Constitution of India Art. 226 - Unexplained
inordinate delay & laches in filing writ
petition-challenging acquisition notifications
-after all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final-Fatal - Court
should be loath to quash the notificationsland owners may be non-suited on the
ground of delay and laches, if the same
remain unexplained

Notification U/s 6 r.w. S. 17 of Act, 1894
published on 18.08.2005 - Possession of land
taken & handed over to UPSIDCL by Collector
on 21.10.2005 - Mutation made in khatauni on
26.11.2005
-
UPSIDCL
allotted
land
to
respondent-5 on 08.02.2006 - Respondent-5
commenced construction of industrial unit &
commissioned its plant on 16.02.2010 - WP-1
filed on 30.01.2006 and rest in 2012 - in none
of writ petitions, any reason for filing writ
petitions belatedly have been explained - delay
resulted in putting respondent-5 in such a
situation where it cannot be put back (Para 75,
78, 89)

Dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,883 of 147,032. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39883 for what follows._

9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
415
mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act. In
that case the petitioner had claimed
employment in the State Government over
and above the compensation paid which the
Court declined. The paragraph 22 of the
aforesaid judgement is reproduced below
hereinbelow :-

"22. There is no provision under the
Land Acquisition Act under which the
Circular dated 28.12.1974 could be issued.
Whatever compensation has to be given for
acquisition of the land is provided under the
Land Acquisition Act itself which is a selfcontained Code. Any G.O. providing for any
further benefit not mentioned in the Land
Acquisition Act would be inconsistent with the
intention of Parliament as contained in the
Land Acquisition Act. Hence any such GO.
would be violative of the Land Acquisition Act
and would hence be invalid. Such a G.O. will
also violate Article 16 of the Constitution as
already mentioned above."

17. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the view that the
petitioners are not entitled to the benefits
claimed by them in the present writ
petition. The case of the petitioners is not at
all covered by the Full Bench judgement of
Gajraj Singh and others (supra). After
going
through
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as the law
laid down by this Court, we are of the
opinion that the order dated 06.9.2019
passed by the respondent no.3 is absolutely
perfect and valid order and does not call for
any interference by this Court specially
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It is further clear on the facts as
narrated above that the petitioners have
neither any legal right nor any factual
foundation to claim the relief of additional
compensation as well as allotment of
additional developed abadi land.

18. The writ petition is devoid of
merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A415
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.04.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 6532 of 2006
&
WRIT - C No. 15174 of 2012
&
WRIT - C No. 1877 of 2012
&
WRIT - C No. 1873 of 2012

Sri Mahesh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Pankaj Dubey, Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Sri
Pranjal Mehrotra, Sri R. Venkatramani, Sri
S.K. Mishra, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Usha
Kiran, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Sri M.C.
Chaturvedi, Sri Anurag Khanna

A. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) - Section 4 - Acquisition of land -
Challenge - Ground - land acquired for a
private
company
but
mandatory
procedure of Chapter VII r.w. Rules 1963
not followed - Held - Land acquired at the
instance of State Industrial Development
Corporation
Limited
(UPSIDCL)
which
forwarded land to Ambuja Cement Ltd (R5)- UPSIDCL, incorporated under Act as a
State Government company-its objective
to
acquire
land,
allot
land
to
entrepreneurs
for
promoting
industrialization
in
State-R-5
set
up
industrial unit for contributing to Govt.
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy of consuming fly ash- acquisition
not for benefit of private company - Part
VII not applicable where acquisition made
for a government company - Acquisition,
proper (69, 70,71)

B. Civil Law -Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894)-U.P.Land Acquisition (Determination
of Compensation and Declaration of Award
by Agreement) Rules, 1997 - Challenge to
Acquisition of land - petitioners accepted
enhanced compensation - without any
demur and objection - Held - Petitioners
barred from challenging acquisition (Para
72)

C. Civil Law - Land Acquisition Act (1 of
1894) - Challenge to Acquisition of land -
Constitution of India Art. 226 - Unexplained
inordinate delay & laches in filing writ
petition-challenging acquisition notifications
-after all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final-Fatal - Court
should be loath to quash the notificationsland owners may be non-suited on the
ground of delay and laches, if the same
remain unexplained

Notification U/s 6 r.w. S. 17 of Act, 1894
published on 18.08.2005 - Possession of land
taken & handed over to UPSIDCL by Collector
on 21.10.2005 - Mutation made in khatauni on
26.11.2005
-
UPSIDCL
allotted
land
to
respondent-5 on 08.02.2006 - Respondent-5
commenced construction of industrial unit &
commissioned its plant on 16.02.2010 - WP-1
filed on 30.01.2006 and rest in 2012 - in none
of writ petitions, any reason for filing writ
petitions belatedly have been explained - delay
resulted in putting respondent-5 in such a
situation where it cannot be put back (Para 75,
78, 89)

Dismissed (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Radheyshyam (Dead) thru LRs & ors. Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. (2011) 5 SCC 553

2. Greater NOIDA Industrial Development
Authority Vs Devendra Kumar & ors. 2011 (6)
ADJ 480 (SC)
3. Pooran & ors. Vs St. of U. P. & ors. 2009 (10)
ADJ 679

4. Shyam Nandan Prasad & ors. Vs St. of Bihar
& ors. (1993) 4 SCC 255

5. Commissioner of Income Tax Gujrat Vs.
Vadilal Lallubhai 1973 A.I.R. S.C. 1016

6. Mannalal Khetan & ors. Vs Kedar Nath Khetan
(1997) 2 SCC 424

7. Falcon Tyres Ltd.,M/s Vs St. of Karnataka
(2006) 6 SCC 530

8. Chaitram Verma & ors. Vs Land Acquisition
Officer, Raipur & ors. AIR 1994 MP 74

9. R.L. Arora Vs St. of U.P. & ors. AIR 1964 S.C. 1230

10. M/s Asian Townsville Farms Ltd Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. (Writ C No.47312 of 2000)
02.05.2016

11. New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Pan Singh &
ors J.T.2007(4) SC 253

12. M/s Lipton India Ltd. & ors. Vs U.O.I., J.T.
(1994) 6 SC 71

13. M.R. Gupta Vs Union of India & ors. (1995)
5 SCC 628

14. K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty Vs. St. of Mysore
AIR 1961 SC 993

15. St. of Orissa Vs. Pyari Mohan Samantaray &
ors. AIR 1976 SC 2617

16. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs. Arun Kumar Patnaik
& ors. (1976) 3 SCC 579

17. Shiv Dass Vs Union of India & ors. AIR 2007
SC 1330= 2007(1) Supreme 455

18. Chunvad Pandey Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2008(4) ESC 2423.

19. Virender Chaudhary Vs Bharat Petroleum
Corporation & Ors (2009) 1 SCC 297

20. S.S. Balu & ors. Vs St. of Kerala & ors.
(2009) 2 SCC 479,
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
417
21. Yunus Vs St. of Maha & ors. (2009) 3 SCC
281

22. Aflatoon & ors. Vs Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi & ors., AIR 1974, SC 2077

23. Kshama Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. 2007(1) AWC 327

24. Roopam Kumari Arya Vs St. of U.P. 2008(4)
ADJ 686

25. Jagriti Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Ghaziabad &
anr. Vs State of U.P. & ors. Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 3195 of 1989

26. Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & anr. Vs St. of
Raj & ors., (2008) 4 SCC 695

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Dubey, learned
counsel for petitioners, learned Standing
Counsel for State-respondents and Sri
Anurag Khanna, Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate for
respondent-4.

2. Writ Petition No.6532 of 2006
(hereinafter referred to as "WP-1") has
been filed under Article 226 of Constitution
of India by 22 petitioners led by Mahesh
son of Harpal praying for issue of a writ of
certiorari
to
quash
Notification
No.2954/77-4-2005-58
Bha/2005
dated
18.07.2005 published by State of U. P.
under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17
(4)
of
Land
Acquisition
Act
1894
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") and
Notification
No.4650/77-4-200558/Bha/2005 dated 18.08.2005 making
declaration under Section 6 of Act, 1894
for acquisition of 38.429 hectare of land
(94.0039 acres) of various plots mentioned
in the Schedule enclosed to the notification,
situate in Village-Badpura and Dhoom
Manikpur,
Tehsil-Dadri,
DistrictGautambudh Nagar for planned industrial
development
in
District-Gautambudh
Nagar.

3. The land was proposed to be
acquired for development, to be executed
through Uttar Pradesh State Industrial
Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur
(hereinafter referred to as 'UPSIDCL').

4. It is said that petitioners filed
objections
before
respondent-3
i.e.
Additional
District
Magistrate
(Land
Acquisition),
Gautambudh
Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'ADM(LA)')
claiming compensation at the rate of
Rs.850/- per square yard or to exclude
petitioners' land from acquisition, but
without
giving
any
opportunity,
respondent-3 by order dated 26.11.2005
expunged
petitioners'
names
from
respective khatauni and passed order for
recording name of UPSIDCL in khatauni.
Mutation has been given effect to in
khatauni
on
08.12.2005.
Details
of
petitioners' land are as under :-

Sl. No.
Name
of
petition
er
Gata
numbe
r
Area
(in
hectare)
1.
Mahes
h
804
1.4540
2.
Chandr
bhan
855
1.5380
3.
Ravind
ra
856
1.3520
4.
Charta 857
0.9440
5.
Vikram 858
0.3770
6.
Chande 859
0.1110
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
r
(M)
7.
Prakas
h
860
(M)
0.1110
8.
Sabhaj
eet
1195
0.2760
9.
Shree
Ram
921
0.1430
10.
Triloki 963
1.5000
11.
Budhpa
l
983
0.3110
12.
Smt.
Ramji
821
0.8140
13.
Sumitr
a
819
0.1290
14.
Tej Pal 979
0.9480
15.
Aap
Singh
761
0.2120
16.
Krishn
a
753
0.2530
17.
Rakesh
Kumar
799
1.1230
18.
Ashok
Kumar
795
0.1540
19.
Membe
r Singh
768
0.2630
20.
Bhagir
ath
17
0.5311
21.
Sita
29M,
199
0.3951,
0.2290
22.
Ram
Kala
737
0.3980

5. Before passing order of mutation,
no opportunity was given to petitioners and
even copy of order was not communicated.
Apparently, land has been acquired for
UPSIDCL
for
carrying
out
planned
industrial development, but as a matter of
fact, entire land has been acquired for a
private company namely M/s Ambuja
Cement Limited, and therefore, in the garb
of public purpose a land has been acquired
for a private company, which is patently
illegal.
Petitioners
are
also
being
pressurized to accept compensation at the
rate of Rs.180/- per square yard. When
petitioners refused, respondents prevailed
upon some Tenure Holders and fixed
compensation at the rate of Rs.245/- per
square yard. Petitioners' entire land has
been acquired to give benefit to a private
company, hence, it is arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of
Constitution of India. Notification was
issued in only one newspaper i.e. Dainik
Vartman Satta, which has no wide
circulation. The authority for which land
was sought to be acquired had to deposit 80
percent of compensation, but as per
knowledge of petitioners, same has not
been deposited. Petitioners are being
threatened to vacate the land or they shall
be
forcefully
evicted.
The
land
of
petitioners, in the garb of statutory
acquisition, is being snatched so as to
benefit a private company, hence, it is
patently unconstitutional.

6. During pendency of writ petition an
Application No.105094 of 2008 was filed
for impleadment of M/s Gujarat Ambuja
Cement
as
respondent-5,
which
was
allowed and notice was issued to newly
impleaded respondent-5 vide order dated
28.03.2014.

7. A supplementary affidavit dated
03.02.2014, sworn by Rajendra son of C.
B. Singh on behalf of petitioners has been
filed placing on record documents to
support that land of farmers was acquired
for a private company. Copy of letter dated
28.01.2005 issued by Special Secretary,
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
419
U.P.
Government
and
addressed
to
Managing Director, UPSIDCL has been
filed as Annexure-SA.1 wherein State
Government has referred to a letter dated
30.12.2004 of one Puneet Saran of M/s
Gujarat
Ambuja
Cement
Limited
requesting to make available 47.8930
hectare private land in village-Dhoom
Manikpur and Badpura, Tehsil-Dadri and
also 2.9753 hectare of Gram Sabha land for
the purpose of M/s Gujarat Ambuja
Cement
Limited
and
directing
that
aforesaid
land
be
acquired
through
UPSIDCL. State Government required
UPSIDCL to send appropriate proposal for
the said purpose. Another letter is dated
03.02.2005 whereby Government's decision
has been communicated that land for the
purpose of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement
Ltd. shall be acquired through UPSIDCL.
In compliance of aforesaid direction of
State Government, UPSIDCL prepared
documents and sent to government for
examination thereof. State Government
issued notification under Section 4/17 of
Act, 1894. Next is the letter dated
19.04.2005 requesting to take steps for
filing caveat in Court so as to contest and
challenge the acquisition proceedings, if
any, on the part of Land Owners. Said letter
states that 108 land owners would be
affected by proposed acquisition. Letter
dated 28.09.2005 of Land Acquisition
Officer (hereinafter referred to as "LAO")
is for payment of publication bill to the
Editor of newspaper concerned. Letter
dated 22.10.2005 states that declaration
under Section 6/17 of Act, 1894 vide
Notification dated 18.08.2005 has been
published and after giving notice to the
Farmers under Section 9 (1) of Act, 1894,
and distribution of 80 percent of estimated
compensation,
possession
has
to
be
obtained within 15 days and thereafter it
shall be transferred to M/s Ambuja Cement
Ltd. It, therefore, requested to get the land
transferred to Executive Engineer of
UPSIDCL at the earliest. Annexure-SA.6 is
letter dated 29.11.2005 of M/s Ambuja
Cement addressed to Sri Atul Gupta,
Principal
Secretary
(Industries),
U.P.
Government stating that UPSIDCL has to
take physical possession of land by
initiating survey work i.e. fixing boundary
of acquired land and then execute lease
deed with Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited
and transfer possession of land to it. Hence,
Government was requested to advise
UPSIDCL
to
complete
necessary
formalities at the earliest. It also suggested
a Consent Award under Section 11 of Act,
1894 by Collector, determining reasonable
and amicable 'Consent Rate' with the
Farmers.
It
also
communicated
that
15.01.2006
has
been
decided
as
'Foundation
Stone'
laying
date
and
commencement of actual work on the site.
Aforesaid letter was communicated by Sri
Atul Kumar Gupta, Secretary, Urban
Development
to
District
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad by letter dated 22.12.2005.

8. On behalf of UPSIDCL i.e.
respondent-4, a counter affidavit has been
filed, sworn by Sri V. K. Singh, Assistant
Manager (Legal), UPSIDCL. Publication of
Notification
dated
18.07.2005
under
Section
4(1)/17
of
Act,
1894
and
declaration dated 18.08.2005 under Section
6/17 of Act, 1894, is admitted. However, it
is said that such notifications were issued
more than five months ago, therefore,
petitioners are guilty of laches; acquired
land has already been handed over by
Collector to UPSIDCL on 21.10.2005;
there are 192 farmers out of which only 22
have approached this Court and rest are
satisfied with acquisition proceedings;
notifications were published in two daily
local newspapers i.e. "Dainik Pralayankar"
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and
"Vartman
Satta"
published
on
22.07.2005
and
on
27.07.2005
in
"Mahamedha" and "Vartman Satta" and
same were also published on the Village
Panchayat Notice Boards and in the
localities; So far as right of compensation is
concerned, if the petitioners are aggrieved
by determination made by ADM(LA), they
have remedy under Section 18 of Act,
1894; The expunction of names in khatauni
has been made after order dated 26.11.2005
passed by Authority concerned giving
opportunity of hearing to all concerned
parties in accordance with U.P. Land
Acquisition Manual, 1987; If petitioners
are aggrieved on account of mutation they
have remedy under U. P. Land Revenue
Code, 2006; UPSIDCL has been created for
development of industries and for such
purpose, i.e. establishment of unit of M/s
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd, land in
question was acquired at the instance of
UPSIDCL by State Government and
procedure followed is perfectly valid and in
accordance with law; acquisition of land is
for public purpose i.e. planned industrial
development
in
District-Gautambudh
Nagar; allegations that land has not been
acquired for public purpose is denied;
allegations of pressurizing petitioners to
accept compensation at the rate of Rs.180
per square yard is also denied; Market
value of land in question came to be
Rs.83.76 per square yard but to be more
liberal to the Farmers, compensation was
offered at the rate of Rs.245/- per square
yard and thereafter with the consent,
agreement under U. P. Karaar Niyamawali,
1997
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"Niyamawali, 1997") has been executed.

9. Respondent-5 has also filed a
separate counter affidavit stating that
acquisition in question would fall under
Section 3 (f)(iii) and (iv) of Act, 1894 and
such acquisition is for public purpose; it is
wholly irrelevant that after acquisition,
acquired land is transferred to an individual
or a private company; UPSIDCL is a Nodal
Agency and determines areas of land which
can be acquired for the purpose of
industrial development; General process of
determination and identification of land for
a planned industrial development is distinct
from piecemeal acquisition for private
company; it is open to State Government to
take recourse to Sections 4, 6 and 17 of
Act, 1894 for acquisition of land; in the
case in hand, there was a need felt for
establishment of a cement company in the
vicinity
of
National
Thermal
Power
Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
'NTPC') with an aim and objective of
consumption of fly ash for the purpose of
manufacturing cement; the productive use
and disposal of fly ash became a major
environmental concern; it is in this context
that State Government acted for acquisition
of land for public purpose; after allocation
of land to respondent-5 on 08.02.2006 it
has already set up its cement plant and
commenced production; Use of land is
entirely in terms of need of company, plant
machinery and future expansion; Majority
of land owners have received compensation
in terms of award; Respondent-5 has
deposited entire premium demanded by
UPSIDCL
including
compensation;
Cement
plant
of
respondent-5
commissioned on 16.02.2010
and in
operation
producing
cement;
as
per
Government of India's policy, Thermal
Power Plants in India, which generates
electricity by using coal, produces large
quantity of fly ash (a waste material) which
is hazardous substance for mankind and
environment, hence they were required to
use said fly ash in an effective manner;
disposal and handling of fly ash is very
difficult and needs to be disposed off in an
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
421
effective
manner
so
as
to
prevent
environmental hazards; Fly ash is generally
thrown in rivers or open area causing water
pollution and air pollution; for effective
off-take of fly ash and for effective
disposal, handling and utilization, cement
factories were required to be established in
the neighbourhood of Thermal Power
Stations. Accordingly National Capital
Power Station (hereinafter referred to as
'NCPS')
situated
in
Dadri,
DistrictGautambudh Nagar which is one of the
Power Station of NTPC, entered into an
agreement
dated
07.08.2004
with
respondent-5 for effective disposal and
utilization of fly ash produced in said
Power Station; a contiguous location of a
cement plant in the vicinity of Thermal
Power Station was in public interest; in
furtherance of aforesaid commitment and
agreement
executed
with
NCPS,
respondent-5 in December 2004 submitted
an application to Government of U.P. for
allotment of a piece of land admeasuring
47.8930 hectares in the vicinity of plant of
NTPC, Dadri; as per its investment
programme in State of U.P., respondent-5
proposed
to
establish
a
cement
manufacturing unit of 1.2 million ton per
annum capacity; On the request of
respondent-5, UPSIDCL, which is a unit of
State of U.P. and established for industrial
growth and development in State of U. P.,
allotted desired land to respondent-5 vide
letter of allotment dated 08.02.2006 and
total area of 38.043 hectares (94.0039
acres) of land has been allotted at the price
Rs.275.62 per square meter with a basic
tentative
cost
at
the
rate
of
Rs.10,48,55,828.60; A lease deed dated
18.08.2006
was
executed
between
UPSIDCL and respondent-5 for a period of
90 years at a premium of Rs.14,06,30,596/-
; initially lease was at rent of Rs.2000/- per
hectare per year for first 30 years.
Rs.5000/- per hectare per year for next
thirty years and after expiry of first 60
years, Rs.10,000/- per hectare per year;
Respondent-5 after allotment of land in
question has invested sum of Rs.291.55
crores for establishment of its factory;
Initially compensation was determined as
Rs.245/- per square yard, which has been
enhanced later as Rs.314 per square yard,
and,
most
farmers
are
accepting
compensation under Niyamawali, 1997;
Majority of petitioners have received
compensation
pursuant
to
agreement
executed under Niyamawali, 1997; Land
has been allotted to respondent-5 after
completing all required formalities and in
accordance with Rules; Respondent-5 is a
bonafide person having infused huge
amount for development i.e. establishment
of an industrial unit; after establishment of
a cement factory by respondent-5, other
cement manufacturing companies have also
established their units namely, Ultratech
Cement etc; One of the petitions being Writ
Petition No.38848 of 2008 filed in respect
of acquisition in question itself challenging
the amount of compensation on the ground
that higher compensation was paid in the
vicinity of land, has been dismissed by this
Court vide judgment dated 05.08.2008.

10. In rejoinder affidavit filed by
petitioners, in reply to the counter affidavit
of respondent-4, it is stated that when a
land is acquired for a private company, the
enquiry contemplated under Rule 4 of Land
Acquisition
(Companies)
Rules,
1963
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1963")
has to be held, otherwise entire proceedings
are bad in law. Broadly the averments
made in writ petition and supplementary
affidavit are reiterated.

11. A personal affidavit has been filed
by
Principal
Secretary,
Industrial
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Development pursuant to order dated
17.11.2016 passed by this Court stating that
District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar
sent a proposal for acquisition of land, area
6.5619 hectare, in village-Badpura, area
31.410 hectare in village-Dhoom Manikpur
Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar
vide
letter
dated
11.04.2005.
The
justification for aforesaid acquisition stated
is that NTPC had installed a Power Plant at
Dadri Tehsil which is producing very huge
amount of fly ash and its storage and non
disposal is causing serious environmental
hazards; Fly ash is being used by Cement
factories for producing cement by using
modern techniques and in this way
pollution due to fly ash can be avoided and
controlled; the huge storage of fly ash at
NTPC
Plant
has
become
serious
environmental problem at Dadri and to
tackle the same, NTPC has entered into an
agreement with Cement company which is
ready to go in production by December,
2005 and will consume 500 metric ton fly
ash every day, which will subsequently
increase to 1000 metric ton; Government of
India, Ministry of Environment and Forest
has also issued a notification providing that
every construction within 100 kilometers of
a Thermal Power Plant will be obliged to
use fly ash for its manufacturing of
construction material; Cement company
namely
M/s
Ambuja
Cement
Ltd,
respondent-5 which has entered into
agreement with NTPC has requested
District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to
make
available
requisite
land
for
establishment of Cement Company; State
Government
through
its
Industrial
Department, vide letter dated 03.02.2005
has made UPSIDCL as a Nodal Body for
acquisition of land for Cement Company
and also required land for production unit,
residential buildings and railway sidings
and in view thereof it is very urgent to
acquire land in two villages as noticed
above, for UPSIDCL for planned industrial
development in District-Gautam Budh
Nagar.

12. Considering urgency it was
requested
that
acquisition
notification
should be issued under Section 4 (1) read
with Section 17 of Act, 1894. Aforesaid
request was forwarded by Commissioner
and Director, Land Acquisition vide letter
dated 21.04.2005 to Industrial Department
of State Government. Aforesaid proposal
along with comments dated 25.05.2005 was
forwarded to Bhumi Udyog Parishad.
Thereafter, it was approved by Chief
Minister on 14.06.2005 and it was
approved as land for Ambuja Cement be
acquired. Further proposal that land is to be
acquired through UPSIDCL was approved
by
Chief
Minister
on
11.07.2005.
UPSIDCL is governed by the provisions of
U. P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act,
1976").
Section
6
thereof
provides
functions of the authority as under :

"6. Functions of the Authority. -
(1) The object of the Authority shall be to
secure the planned development of the
industrial development areas.

(2) Without prejudice to the
generality of the objects of the Authority,
the Authority shall perform the following
functions-

(a) to acquire land in the
industrial development area, by agreement
or through proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of
this Act;

(b) to prepare a plan for the
development of the industrial development area;

(c) to demarcate and develop
sites
for
industrial,
commercial
and
residential purposes according to the plan;
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
423

(d) to provide infra-structure for
industrial, commercial and residential
purposes;

(e) to provide amenities;

(f) to allocate arid transfer either
by way of sale or lease or otherwise plots
of land for industrial, commercial or
residential purposes;

(g) to regulate the erection of
buildings and setting up of industries; and

(h) to lay down the purpose for
which a particular site or plot of land shall
be
used,
namely,
for
industrial
or
commercial or residential purpose or any
other specified purpose in such area.

6A. Power to authorize a person
to provide infrastructure or amenities and
collect tax or fee. - Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any
other provisions of this Act and subject to
such terms and conditions as may be
specified in the regulations, the Authority
may, by agreement, authorize any person to
provide or maintain or continue to provide
or maintain any infrastructure or amenities
under this Act and to collect taxes or fees,
as the case may be, levied therefore."
(emphasis added)

13. Thereafter notifications under
Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of Act, 1894 were
issued on 18.07.2005 and 18.08.2005 and
entire action of respondents is consistent
with provisions of Act, 1976 read with Act,
1894.

14. State Government by letter dated
10.05.2005 made following queries from
District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar :

^^1- vk;qDr ,oa funs'kd 1⁄4Hkw-v-1⁄2 Hkwfe
v/;kfIr funs'kky;] jktLo ifj"kn m-iz- y[kuÅ
ds i= fnukad 21-4-05 ds i`"Bkadu dh vis{kkuqlkj
10 izfr'kr vuqekfur izfrdj ,oa 10 izfr'kr
vtZu O;; dh /kujkf'k fu/kkZfjr ys[kk 'kh"kZd
dze'k% 8443&117 o 0029 esa tek djk dj
pkyku dh izekf.kr izfr miyC/k djk;h tk;A

2- iz'uxr Hkwfe vtZu gsrq 10 izfr'kr
vuqekfur izfrdj o 10 izf'kr vtZu O;; gsrq
tek dh x;h /kujkf'k dk pkyku tks fu/kkZfjr
ys[kk'kh"kZ ds ctk; vU; ys[kk'kh"kZd esa tek fd;k
x;k gS] esa mfYyf[kr dqy /kujkf'k :0
1]72]86]742-00 gS] tc fd bl laca/k esa nksuksa xzkeksa
ds ckjs esa fo'ks"k Hkwfe v/;kfIr vf/kdkjh ds izek.k
i= o Hkwfe v/;kfIr eSuqvy ds iSjk&14 ds
ifjf'k"V&2 ds vuqlkj dysDVj ds izek.k o
vkns'k esa mfYyf[kr /kujkf'k dk ;ksx fHkUu gS
rFkk xzke c<+iqjk ds izdj.k esa vtZu O;; o
izfrdj dh /kujkf'k ds ;ksx esa Hkh =qfV gSA vr%
bl laca/k esa mijksDr fcUnq la[;k&1 ds vuqlkj
jktLo ifj"kn }kjk fu/kkZfjr ys[kk'kh"kZd esa
/kukjkf'k tek fd;s tkus ddk pkyku miyC/k
djkrs le; mDr =qfV dk Hkh fuokj.k fd;k
tk;A

3- xzke c<+iqjk ds laca/k esa izi=
la[;k&17 esa foKfIr ds vkys[; 1⁄4fgUnh1⁄2 ds
vuqlwph ds vUrxZr xkVk la[;k&24,e dk
{ks=Qy 0-2125 vafdr gS] tcfd izi= la[;k&18
esa foKfIr ds vkys[; 1⁄4vaxzsth1⁄2 ds vuqlwph esa ds
xkVk la[;k&24,e- dk {ks=Qy 0-2185 vafdr gSA
vr% mDr xkVk la[;k&24,e ds okLrfod
{ks=Qy dk mYys[k djrs gq, la'kksf/kr o izekf.kr
vuqlwph 'kklu dks miyC/k djk;h tk;A**

"1. As required by way of the
endorsement
on
the
letter
of
the
Commissioner
and
Director
(Land
Acquisition),
Directorate
of
Land
Acquisition,
Revenue
Board,
Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow, a certified copy of the
challan be made available by depositing
the amount of 10 percent estimated
compensation and 10 percent amount of
acquisition cost under the prescribed
account
heads
8443-117
and
0029
respectively.

2. The total amount mentioned in
the challan for the 10 percent estimated
compensation and 10 percent acquisition
cost for acquisition of the land in question
comes to be Rs. 1,72,86,742.00, which has
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been deposited in another account head
instead of the prescribed account head;
whereas, the total of amounts mentioned in
the certificate of Special Land Acquisition
Officer for both the villages and in the
certificate and order of the Collector
according to Para 14 of Appendix-2 of
Land Acquisition Manual is different; and
there is also an error in the total of
acquisition cost and compensation in case
of Village Badpura. Hence, in this
connection, while making available the
challan for deposit of amount under the
account head prescribed by the Revenue
Board as per the aforesaid point no. 1, the
said error may also be corrected.

3. In Form 17 related to Village
Badpura, the area of Gata No. 24M is
mentioned as 0.2125 in the schedule of the
notification (Hindi draft) , whereas, the
area of Gata No. 24M is mentioned as
0.2185 in the schedule of the notification
(English draft) in Form 18. Hence, a
revised
certified
schedule
be
made
available to the government by mentioning
actual area of the said Gata No. 24M."

(English translation by Court)

15. Reply by District Magistrate,
Gautam Budh Nagar was given by letter
dated 18.05.2005 stating that 10 per cent
advance and 10 per cent land acquisition
expenses
which
come
to
total
Rs.29,81,727/- has been deposited in
District Treasury in respect of land
proposed to be acquired in village-Badpura
and village-Dhoom Manikpur. There is
some modification in the area of land,
hence, demand has been forwarded for
deposit of advance and land acquisition
expenses. State Government again vide
letter dated 26.05.2005 required District
Magistrate to submit documents showing
that the amount has been deposited.

16. A supplementary affidavit dated
31.08.2017 has been filed in reply to
averments made by respondents that
petitioners
have
accepted
enhanced
compensation under U. P. Land Acquisition
(Determination
of
Compensation
and
Declaration of Award by Agreement)
Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as
"Karaar Niyamawali, 1997"). It is stated
that at the time of filing writ petition,
petitioners have not entered into any
agreement under Karaar Niyamawali, 1997
and also not accepted any amount towards
compensation. However, during pendency
of writ petition, petitioners have signed
agreements. The explanation given is that
petitioners are poor farmers, uneducated
and ignorant of intricacies of legal
documents; the agreement signed by them
is not conscious and free will document and
these agreements are invalid in the eyes of
law as petitioners have signed them without
understanding their rights etc. It is further
stated that be that as it may, since,
acquisition itself is bad in law, said
agreement would be of no consequence and
for this purpose reliance has been placed on
Radheyshyam (Dead) through LRs and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, (2011)
5 SCC 553; Greater NOIDA Industrial
Development Authority vs. Devendra
Kumar and others, 2011 (6) ADJ 480
(SC) and this Court's judgment in Pooran
and others vs. State of U. P. and others,
2009 (10) ADJ 679. In para 8 it is said that
petitioners-9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 33 and 35
have not accepted compensation till date. In
para 9 it is said that 40 per cent of acquired
land is still vacant.

17. Reply affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondent-5 stating that during
pendency of writ petition, petitioners
voluntarily and knowingly have accepted
initial compensation of Rs.245/- per square
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
425
yards and thereafter enhanced additional
compensation of Rs.69/- per square yards.
Thus,
petitioners
have
received
compensation at the rate of Rs.314/- per
square yards without any demur and
objection
and
also
entered
into
an
agreement under Karaar Niyamawali, 1997.
Mere statement that agreements have been
signed under pressure is not correct. In the
receipts for payment of compensation,
petitioners have undertaken that they have
no
objection
to
acquisition
under
consideration. Now the petitioners are
barred from challenging acquisition at all.
With
regard
to
utilization
of
land,
respondent-5, in paragraph 9 of reply
affidavit,
has
given
description
of
utilization of land as under :-

(i) Built up area = 122791.1 Sq.
Yds.

(ii) Land for Green Belt =
150146.462 Sq. Yds.

(33 % as per norm of total land)

(i) Land set apart for Railway
siding = 121055.725 sq. yds.

(ii) Truck Yard area = 60995.492
Sq. yds.

Total (38.0429 Hect.) 454989 Sq.
Yds.

18. Facts stated above show that
initially an agreement was entered into
between NTPC and respondent-5 pursuant
whereto respondent-5 had to establish an
industrial unit in Tehsil-Dadri, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar. It selected land in
villages-Badpura and Dhoom Manikpur.
Request was made to Collector to make
available aforesaid land by acquisition.
Recommendation was made by Collector
for acquisition of land in favour of
respondent-5 giving its reasons as we have
already noticed, but in order to avoid
procedure which was to be followed for
acquisition of land for company, District
Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar resorted to
Government
Order
dated
03.02.2005
whereby UPSIDCL was made Nodal Body
for acquiring land for companies and,
therefore, colour was given to proposed
acquisition proceedings as if land is being
acquired for a Government company i.e.
Instrumentality of State and not a private
company. That is how procedure prescribed
in Statute for acquisition of land for a
private company was given a go bye.

19. Writ Petition No.15174 of 2012
(hereinafter referred to as "WP-2") has
been filed by 25 petitioners challenging
acquisition notification dated 18.07.2005
issued under Section 4 of Act, 1894 and
notification dated 18.08.2005 issued under
Section 6 of said Act. Disputed land of
petitioners are detailed as under :

Sl. No.
Plot
Number
Area (in hectare)
1.
731
0.6190
2.
763
0.1050
3.
778
0.5320
4.
781
0.2810
5.
791
0.5550
6.
792
0.4880

20. Aforesaid land is situated in
village-Dhoom Manikpur, Pargana and
Tehsil-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
Challenge is on the ground that right of
petitioner to file objections and hearing
under Section 5 (A) of Act, 1894 has been
dispensed with by invoking urgency Clause
under Section 17 (4) of Act, 1894 illegally
as there was no urgency whatsoever and
land was acquired for fulfilling political
obligations/promise
of
private
426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons/industries. In para 11 it is admitted
that petitioners entered into agreements
under Karaar Niyamawali, 1997 and
accepted compensation. However, it is said
that they had no option, since, respondents
were
in
dominant
position,
hence,
petitioners under compulsion entered into
aforesaid
agreement.
Though
various
grounds are mentioned in writ petition, but
learned counsel for petitioners has pressed
his challenge to impugned notifications on
the ground that land was acquired for a
private company and the procedure laid
down in Chapter VII read with Rules 1963
was not followed, which are mandatory.

21. We are not detailing the pleadings
in counter and rejoinder affidavit, since,
they are common as are involved in WP-I,
which we have detailed hereinabove.

22. Writ Petition No.1873 of 2012
(hereinafter referred to as "WP-3") has
been filed by 44 petitioners challenging
notifications dated 18.07.2005 (Annexure-1
to writ petition) and 18.08.2005 (Annexure2 to writ petition) and it is founded on
similar grounds and facts as are stated in
WP-2. However, land in dispute in this writ
petition is detailed as under :

Land
siutate
in
Village-Badpura,
Pargana-Dadri, District-Gautam Budh
Nagar
Sl. No. Plot
number
Area (in hectare)
1.
10 N
0.2566
2.
16
0.5286
3.
17
0.5311
4.
30M
0.1320
5.
78M
0.4979
6.
84
0.4033
7.
85
0.1391
Land
situate
in
Village-Dhoom
Manikpur,
Pargana-Dadri,
DistrictGautam Budh Nagar
8.
723
0.1500
9.
731
0.6190
10.
735
0.6010
11.
788
0.6790
12.
737
0.3980
13.
743
0.4680
14.
753
0.2530
15.
755
0.2350
16.
757
0.8530
17.
758
1.4830
18.
761
0.2120
19.
764
0.2130
20.
765
0.2120
21.
766
0.6725
22.
768
0.2630

23. Here also, in paragraph 11 it is
admitted that petitioners have entered into
agreement under Karaar Niyamawali, 1997
and have accepted compensation and
explanation for the same is similar to that
as given by petitioners in WP-2. Here also,
we are not detailing the pleadings in
counter and rejoinder affidavit, since, they
are common as are involved in WP-I,
which we have detailed hereinabove.

24. Writ Petition No.1877 of 2012
(hereinafter referred to as "WP-4") has
been filed by 41 petitioners challenging
notifications dated 18.07.2005 and it is
founded on similar grounds and facts as are
9 All. Sri Mahesh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
427
stated in WP-2. However, land in dispute in
this writ petition is detailed as under :

Land
siutate
in
Village-Dhoom
Manikpur, Pargana-Dadri, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar
Sl. No.
Plot
number
Area (in hectare)
1.
775
1.0010
2.
787
0.4570
3.
800
0.2540
4.
801
0.2810
5.
802
0.3020
6.
855
1.5380
7.
857
0.9440
8.
977
0.2160
9.
978
0.2910
10.
978G
0.3410
11.
978Gh
0.2020
12.
980
0.1360
13.
983
0.3110
14.
987
0.1680

25. Here also, in paragraph 11 it is admitted
that petitioners have entered into agreement under
Karaar Niyamawali, 1997 and have accepted
compensation and explanation for the same is
similar to that as given by petitioners in WP-2.
Here also, we are not detailing the pleadings in
counter and rejoinder affidavit, since, they are
common as are involved in WP-I, which we have
detailed hereinabove.

26. The issues which have arisen in
these writ petitions are :-

1. Whether acquisition was for a
private company so as to attract procedure
laid down in Part VII of Act, 1894 read
with Company Rules?

2.Whether
procedure
of
acquisition
adopted
by
respondents
rendered the acquisition valid or not?

3. Whether petitioners deserve to
be non suited on account of delay?

4. What relief, if any, petitioners
are entitled?

27. In this backdrop we will have to
examine first "whether acquisition of land
ex facie is valid or not?"

28. The provisions of the Act, 1894 as
it existed prior to the 1984 amendment
need to be noticed. Section 3 of Act, 1894
is a definition clause which defines various
expressions. Section 3(f) was amended in
U.P. by U.P. Act No.22 of 1954 w.e.f.
19.11.1954. Prior
to
amendments
of
Section 3 (f) by Act.68 of 1984 provided
that "public purpose" included provisions
for
or
in
connection
with
sanitary
improvements of any kind, including
reclamation; laying out of village sites,
townships
or
the
extension,
planned
development or improvement of existing
village sites or townships; settlement of
land for agriculture with the weaker section
of people etc.