# Tejal Uppal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 667
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-15
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 9534 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Yadav, C.J. Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tejal-uppal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47251
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Land acquisition - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), 11(a),
17, 48; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013: Section 24(2) - In case a person has
been
tendered
the
compensation
as
provided u/s 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed u/s 24(2) due to non-payment
or non-deposit of compensation in Court.
Once award has been passed on taking
possession u/s 16 of the Act of 1894, the land
vests in State, there is no divesting provided u/s
24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse u/s 24(2).
(Para 14)

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not
give rise to new cause of action to
question
the
legality
of
concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. S. 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014.
(Para 14)

In the present case, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 12.11.2020 on the
ground that the abadi land of the petitioner
has been acquired by invoking the provisions of
S. 17. The provision of S. 11(a) of Act of 1894
has not been followed, as such the acquisition
proceedings lapsed and the order dated
12.11.2020 is bad in eye of law and the
petitioner is entitled for return of her land. (Para
10)

B. Filing of successive Writ Petitions on
the same ground with identical relief is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
A previous writ petition challenging the
impugned order (dated 12.11.2020) was
dismissed as withdrawn without granting any
liberty to the petitioner. Moreover, two other
petitions, one challenging the acquisition on
the same grounds and other praying for the
same relief have also been dismissed vide
orders dated 31.05.2016 and 10.12.2019
respectively. (Para 11)

C. A clear finding has been recorded by
the Authority in the impugned order that
the possession of the land has been taken
and transferred to the Noida Development
Authority on 03.09.2003. The award was
made
on
29.01.2010.
The
amount
of
compensation has been deposited in the Court
by challan on 14.2.2017, thus the entire
proceedings has been concluded. It is further
recorded in the impugned order that the Noida
Development Authority has informed to the
State Government that the part of the land is
under road in Sector 96, 97 & 98 of Noida. (Para
12)

D. The findings recorded in the order
dated
12.11.2020
have
not
been
challenged in the writ petition rather the
petitioner has admitted that he had been
dispossessed in the year 2003 by demolishing
the construction over the land in dispute. (Para
13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

7 All. Tejal Uppal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667
(2021)07ILR A667
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY YADAV, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 9534 of 2021

Tejal Uppal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Land acquisition - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), 11(a),
17, 48; Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement
Act,
2013: Section 24(2) - In case a person has
been
tendered
the
compensation
as
provided u/s 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed u/s 24(2) due to non-payment
or non-deposit of compensation in Court.
Once award has been passed on taking
possession u/s 16 of the Act of 1894, the land
vests in State, there is no divesting provided u/s
24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession
has been taken there is no lapse u/s 24(2).
(Para 14)

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not
give rise to new cause of action to
question
the
legality
of
concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. S. 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014.
(Para 14)

In the present case, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 12.11.2020 on the
ground that the abadi land of the petitioner
has been acquired by invoking the provisions of
S. 17. The provision of S. 11(a) of Act of 1894
has not been followed, as such the acquisition
proceedings lapsed and the order dated
12.11.2020 is bad in eye of law and the
petitioner is entitled for return of her land. (Para
10)

B. Filing of successive Writ Petitions on
the same ground with identical relief is
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
A previous writ petition challenging the
impugned order (dated 12.11.2020) was
dismissed as withdrawn without granting any
liberty to the petitioner. Moreover, two other
petitions, one challenging the acquisition on
the same grounds and other praying for the
same relief have also been dismissed vide
orders dated 31.05.2016 and 10.12.2019
respectively. (Para 11)

C. A clear finding has been recorded by
the Authority in the impugned order that
the possession of the land has been taken
and transferred to the Noida Development
Authority on 03.09.2003. The award was
made
on
29.01.2010.
The
amount
of
compensation has been deposited in the Court
by challan on 14.2.2017, thus the entire
proceedings has been concluded. It is further
recorded in the impugned order that the Noida
Development Authority has informed to the
State Government that the part of the land is
under road in Sector 96, 97 & 98 of Noida. (Para
12)

D. The findings recorded in the order
dated
12.11.2020
have
not
been
challenged in the writ petition rather the
petitioner has admitted that he had been
dispossessed in the year 2003 by demolishing
the construction over the land in dispute. (Para
13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Indore Development Authority Vs. Manohar
Lal Yadav, (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Para 14)
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present
writ petition with the following relief:

"A. Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS or appropriate
directions to issue commanding and/or set aside
the order dated 12/11/2020 and directed to
passed the fresh speaking order after having in
the matter (Annexure no. 1)."

B. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and
directed to the respondent no. 1 to remitted back
the possession as well as title of the land in
question to its owner.

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the
respondent no. 1 to consider and passed
appropriate order on the representation dated
19/02/2021
submitted
by
the
petitioner
expeditiously
within
a
suitable
period.
(Annexure no. 16).

D. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the
respondent no. 2 to consider and passed
appropriate order on the representation dated
12/10/2020 under section 17 of the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously
within a suitable period. (Annexure no. 17)."

2. The facts as stated in the writ petition are
that the petitioner and her husband, namely Inder
Bir Singh Uppal has purchased certain land,
including the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no.
305M, area 02-05-00 Bigha Pukhta i.e., 0.5580
Hectare situated in village Sadarpur, Pargana &
Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. It is stated in the writ petition that the
dispute in the present writ petition relates only
with the land of Khata no. 310, Khasra no. 305M
area 02-05-00 Pukhta i.e. 0.5580 Hectare having
old khasra nos. 429 & 504. It is further stated by
the petitioner that after purchasing the aforesaid
land, the petitioner has established a Girls
School, in the name and style of Suman Girls
Junior High School in the year 1997. In the year
2002, a notification dated 30.3.2002 under
section 4(1) read with section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
"Act of 1894") was issued. The said notification
was published on 15.4.2002 in various newspapers. It is further stated in the writ petition that
in view of the urgency clause invoked by the
State Government, no objections were invited
however the petitioner filed his objection that
respondent authorities threatened to demolish the
school building. Thereafter a writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 20783 of 2002 was filed with a
prayer to quash the notification dated 30.3.2002
and to restrain the respondents and their agents
from demolishing the school building and taking
the possession of the land. The aforesaid writ
petition was finally disposed off by the judgment
and order dated 20.5.2002.

4. By the aforesaid order dated 20.5.2002
this Court has been pleased to order the State
Government to decide the applications of the
petitioner for exemption as provided under
section 48 of Act of 1894. It is further stated that
the aforesaid order was not complied with and
the construction of school building was
demolished. Thereafter a contempt petition being
Contempt Petition No. 3431 of 2002 (Capt. Inder
Veer Singh Uppal Vs. Hemant Rao and others)
was filed before this Court and notice was issued
to the opposite parties on 18.11.2003. In reply to
the contempt notice, the reply was filed by the
opposite parties enclosing letter dated 03.06.2002
and 25.07.2003. Thereafter the order dated
8.1.2004 passed by the Special Secretary was
brought on record, by which the application of
the petitioner was rejected and the finding was
recorded that the possession of Khasra nos. 302,
305/2 & 306 has already been transferred to the
Noida Development Authority on 3.9.2003. A
further finding was recorded that there is no
school building in the land in dispute. With these
7 All. Tejal Uppal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
669
findings, the Special Secretary, rejected the
application of the petitioner for release of his land
from the acquisition. The said order is annexed
as annexure-9 to the writ petition.

5. It is further stated by the petitioner that
the order dated 8.1.2004 was challenged by the
petitioner's husband before this Court by way of
filing Writ Petition No. 21364 of 2004 (Capt.
Inder Bir Singh Uppal Vs. State of U.P. and 3
others). The said writ petition had been
dismissed in default on 31.5.2016 and no recall
application for recalling the order dated
31.5.2016 has been filed. It is further stated in the
writ petition that the petitioner along with her
husband
filed
a
detailed
representation/application
dated
14.11.2019
claiming benefit of section 11(a) of the Act of
1894. The petitioner along with her husband
filed Writ Petition no. 40276 of 2019. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 10.12.2019, with a
finding that the petitioner has earlier filed writ
petition no. 21364 of 2004 with regard to the
direction that the acquisition proceedings have
lapsed under section 11(a) of the Act of 1894,
therefore, his land be exempted under section 48
of the Act of 1894. Since, the said writ petition
was dismissed on 31.5.2016, the second writ
petition was not maintainable. Further findings
has been recorded by the Court that the scope of
Section 11(a) has been considered in the case of
Gajraj Singh, as the notification dated
30.5.2002 for Village Sadarpur, District Gautam
Budh Nagar was also subject matter of Gajraj
Singh case and objection to section 11(a) of the
Act of 1894 has been dealt with in that judgment.

6. It is further stated in the writ petition that
the award under section 11 of the Act of 1894
was made on 29.1.2010 and no information for
the same was given to the petitioner under
section 12(2) of Act of 1894. It is further stated
that the amount awarded by award dated
29.1.2020 has been deposited by the Noida
Development Authority through challan on
14.2.2017.

7. It is claimed in the writ petition that as
this Court in its order dated 10.12.2019 has
observed that the petitioner's case is covered by
the decision of the case of Gajraj Singh, as such,
he is entitled for additional compensation and
other benefits, hence she made representations
dated 25.12.2019 by registered post on
26.12.2019. It is further stated in the writ petition
that the petitioner in his representation has also
claimed benefit of section 24(2) of Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ''Act of
2013'), as the said representation was not being
considered by the State, as such, the petitioner
again filed Writ Petition No. 8536 of 2020
(Tejpal Uppal vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
which was finally disposed of by order dated
6.3.2020 with a direction to the respondent no. 1,
i.e., the State Government to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 11.2.2020.
The order dated 6.3.2020 was not complied with
as such a Contempt Application No. 4051 of
2020 was filed. It is further stated that the
respondent no. 1, after the order of contempt
petition dated 20.10.2020 has passed the order
impugned in the present writ petition dated
12.11.2020 in a cursory manner without
providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.

8. Challenging the aforesaid order, a
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2240 of 2021
(Tejpal Uppal vs. State of U.P. and Others)
was
filed
which
was
dismissed
as
withdrawn by order dated 28.1.2021. After
the order dated 28.1.2021 passed in writ
petition no. 2240 of 2021, the petitioner
670 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted another representation dated
19.2.2021 by registered post for recalling
the order dated 12.11.2020, as the said
order
was
passed
without
providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

9. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

10. The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 12.11.2020 on the ground that
the abadi land of the petitioner has been
acquired by invoking the provisions of
section 17. The provision of section 11(a)
of Act of 1894 has not been followed, as
such the acquisition proceedings lapsed and
the order dated 12.11.2020 is bad in eye of
law and the petitioner is entitled for return
of her land.

11. It is pertinent to mention that the
order dated 12.11.2020 was challenged by
filing Writ Petition No. 2240 of 2021. The
said writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn without granting any liberty to
the petitioner, as such, another writ petition
challenging the order dated 12.11.2020 is
not maintainable. In so far as the grounds
of challenge of order dated 12.11.2020 on
the basis of section 11(a) of Act of 1894 is
concerned, the Writ Petition No. 21364 of
2004 challenging the acquisition has
already been dismissed by order dated
31.5.2016 and another writ petition for the
same relief has also been dismissed by this
Court by order dated 10.12.2019 being
Writ Petition No. 40276 of 2019. Filing of
successive Writ Petitions on the same
ground with identical relief is nothing but
an abuse of process of law.

12. It appears that in the order
impugned a clear finding has been recorded
by the Authority that the possession of the
land has been taken and transferred to the
Noida Development Authority on 3.9.2003.
The award was made on 29.1.2010. The
amount
of
compensation
has
been
deposited in the Court by challan on
14.2.2017, thus the entire proceedings has
been concluded. It is further recorded in the
impugned
order
that
the
Noida
Development Authority has informed to the
State Government that the part of the land
is under road in Sector 96, 97 & 98 of
Noida.

13. The findings recorded in the order
dated 12.11.2020 have not been challenged
in the writ petition rather the petitioner in
this writ petition has admitted that he had
been dispossessed in the year 2003 by
demolishing the construction over the land
in dispute.

14. Five Judges Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manohar Lal Yadav,
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 has
considered the scope of Sub-Section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act of 2013 along with
the law related to Act of 1894 and has
recorded its conclusion, is as under:

"365. Resultantly, the decision
rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation &
Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all
other decisions in which Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been followed, are
also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji
Nagar Residential Association (supra)
cannot be said to be laying down good law,
is overruled and other decisions following
the same are also overruled. In Indore
Development
Authority
v.
Shailendra
(Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors., (supra), the
aspect with respect to the proviso to
Section 24(2) and whether ''or' has to be
read as ''nor' or as "and" was not placed
for consideration. Therefore, that decision
7 All. Tejal Uppal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
671
too cannot prevail, in the light of the
discussion in the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of
Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not
made
as on 1.1.2014
the
date
of
commencement of Act of 2013, there is no
lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to
be determined under the provisions of Act
of 2013.

366.2. In case the award has been
passed within the window period of five
years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings
shall continue as provided under Section
24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of
1894 as if it has not been repealed.

366.3. The word ''or' used in
Section 24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as ''nor' or as
''and'. The deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 takes place where due to inaction
of authorities for five years or more prior
to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other
words, in case possession has been taken,
compensation has not been paid then there
is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has
been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression 'paid' in
the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013 does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of
non-deposit is provided in proviso to
Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of land
holdings
then
all
beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
Act
of
1894
shall
be
entitled
to
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the
obligation under Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been
fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the
said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in
the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
In case of non-deposit with respect to the
majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the Act of 2013 has to
be paid to the "landowners" as on the date
of notification for land acquisition under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

366.5. In case a person has been
tendered the compensation as provided
under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition
has lapsed under Section 24(2)due to nonpayment or non-deposit of compensation in
court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1).
Land owners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for
higher compensation, cannot claim that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

366.6. The proviso to Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as
part of Section 24(2) not part of Section
24(1)(b).

366.7. The
mode
of
taking
possession under the Act of 1894 and as
contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/ memorandum.
Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the Act of
1894, the land vests in State there is no
divesting provided under Section 24(2) of
the Act of 2013, as once possession has
been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).

366.8. The provisions of Section
24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of
672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings
are
applicable
in
case
authorities have failed due to their inaction
to take possession and pay compensation
for five years or more before the Act of
2013 came into force, in a proceeding for
land acquisition pending with concerned
authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by
court has to be excluded in the computation
of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013 does not give rise to new cause of
action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date
of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e.,
1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and timebarred claims and does not reopen
concluded
proceedings
nor
allow
landowners to question the legality of mode
of taking possession to reopen proceedings
or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition."

15. In view of the above, the writ
petition is wholly misconceived and abuse
of process of law, as successive writ
petitions are being filed challenging the
same acquisition proceedings. Thus, the
writ petition is hereby dismissed with cost
of Rs. 25,000/.
----------
(2021)07ILR A672
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY YADAV, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 11445 of 2021

Vijaypal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manish Kumar, Sri Manoj Kumar

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

A. Civil Law - Land acquisition - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 16, 17(1),
48(1), 48(2).

Constitution of India: Article 14 - Scope
- There is no concept of negative
equality u/Art. 14. If any wrong order
was passed earlier, petitioners can't
seek the benefit of the same. The concept
of equality as envisaged under Art. 14 is a
positive concept which cannot be enforced in
a negative manner. When any authority is
shown to have committed any illegality or
irregularity in favour of any individual or
group of individuals, others cannot claim the
same illegality or irregularity on ground of
denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong
judgment passed in favour of one individual
does not entitle others to claim similar
benefits. (Para 11 to 14)

B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section
48 - Once possession has been taken
and land has not been utilised, there
cannot
be
withdrawal
from
the
acquisition of any land. Land cannot be
restituted to the owner after the stage
of possession is over. (Para 17)

U/s 48 of the 1894 Act, withdrawal of the land
acquisition proceedings was permissible only if
the possession has not been taken u/s 16 or
17(1). (Para 15 to 20)

It appears from perusal of the averment made
in the present writ petition as well as in the
representations that petitioners have only
prayed for release of their land from acquisition
proceedings. No averment whatsoever has been
in
the
entire
writ
petition
or
in
the
representations made before the Authorities
that the possession of the land has not been
taken. (Para 22)