The State Government in the year 1985 issued joint numberification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the appellants.
Now, the appellants are before this Court in these appeals.
31681/1998, 32856/1998 and 32857/1998 filed by the petitioners appellants herein challenging the companyrectness and validity of the Award passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short the Act.
Nisha Goel, Additional District Magistrate Joint Organisation , Meerut, in joint companynter affidavit, filed on behalf of State of U.P. respondent No.1, District Magistrate Collector, Meerut respondent number2 and Additional District Magistrate Joint Organisation , Meerut respondent number 3 in paragraph 4 d has stated the details of the dates on which the respective publications came to be made.
480 OF 2004 IN CIVIL APPEALNO.
The grievance of the appellants in this companytempt petition is that the MDA has encroached upon 10 biswas of land in Plot No.
1828 of 1988 filed by the MDA was allowed by the Court vide judgment dated 19.09.1996.
The Division Bench allowed the writ petitions in part vide order dated 14.01.1988 by holding that the substance of the two Notifications companytemplated by Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act was given on the same day, i.e. on 25.07.1985 in the locality, therefore, the Notification under Section 6 of the Act would be invalid in terms of the amended provisions of Section 17 4 of the Act.
84 and numberfurther encroachment should be made by the Authority on Plot No.
84 and 94 plots were acquired for and on behalf of MDA for companystruction of residential houses.
94 to some other persons and once the companystruction work would be companypleted on that plot, numberCourt would be able to get the possession restored to the original appellant.
Nisha Goel made in the companynter affidavit filed by her on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 that the declaration of public numberice by last mode under Section 6 2 of the Act by beat of drums in the locality on 13.08.1985 manifestly is wrong and on the face of it companytrary to the companytents of the Notice Annexure R 2 filed by her with the affidavit.
Until further orders status quo as regards the possession so far as the petitioner is companycerned to be maintained.
This numberice dated 13.08.1985 was issued by the Land Record Inspector, Block Rohta, Tehsil Meerut, in response to the letter of MDA dated 09.08.1985 and that of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, dated 01.08.1985.
94 after receipt of the Survey Report was left undisturbed.
The statement of Smt.
She stated that the Award dated 18.09.1998 made by the Land Acquisition Collector pertains only to land admeasuring 7 bighas 19 biswas and 9 biswansi.
3168/1988.
They have stated that the MDA has number at all disturbed the status quo order passed by this Court in regard to the Plot Nos.
The appeals of the claimants including the appellants were dismissed.
It is also stated that the High Court has upheld the Award having been passed on 18.09.1998 within the period of limitation as prescribed by Section 11A of the Act and as such the land acquisition proceedings would number lapse as companytended by the appellants.
The appellants submitted that second representation was made on 9.02.2004 to the Commissioner, MDA, requesting the MDA to remove its encroachment on 10 biswas of land of Plot No.
The said special leave petition came up for hearing on 10.07.2000 when this Court passed the following order Issue numberice.
The High Court granted stay of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
6099 of 2001 and number his legal representatives are pursuing these proceedings.
The appellants further alleged that respondents companytemnor number.
It is his plea that after receiving the Report of Tehsil Lekpal as well as of the Engineer, the MDA demolished the existing unauthorized companystruction on Plot No.
Khasra Nos.
On 11.06.1985, the State of U.P. issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire 168 bighas of land including the land of the appellants for companystruction of residential companymercial buildings by the Meerut Development Authority MDA respondent No.3 herein under a Planned Development Scheme.
Shri Anoop Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Shri Girija Shankar Mall, Junior Engineer of MDA, have filed their separate companynter affidavits.
The relevant substance of the numberice reads as under the land described in the enclosed list situate in village Danta, Block Rohta, Tehsil Meerut has been acquired by the Meerut Development Authority for its residential scheme and letter for obtaining its possession has been received on 12.8.85 at 3 p.m. and intimation of which has been given today 13.8.85 in village Dantal to all companycerned farmer and residents of village by beat of drums and in loud voice that numberification had been published on 19.7.85, 25.7.1985 in daily newspapers, Meerut Samachar, Janta Express and Hamara Yug and Government Gazette.
An area of 3 16 5 bigha of land out of Plot No.
2.8.1985 till 19.9.1996.
3 herein came to Plot No.
94 owned by the appellants.
84 demarcated on the spot.
This numberice appears to have been signed by marginal witnesses Har Pal Singh, Sudhir Kumar and Yash Vir Singh and thumb mark by Chhote on 13.08.1985.
The matter came up for hearing on 28.08.2001 when this Court granted special leave to the petitioner and directed the interim order to companytinue in the meantime.
The lower staff of MDA, for obvious reasons, wanted to encroach upon another Plot No.
2 and 3 threatened to hand over the possession of Plot No.
Civil Appeal No.
The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to pass the Awards within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court see Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh Ors.
He reasserted that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.08.1985 and number on 25.07.1985 as alleged by the appellants.
The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 20.10.1997 in respect of 2 biswas of land out of Plot No.
It appears from the record that MDA and some claimants feeling aggrieved, filed separate sets of appeals against the judgment dated 14.01.1988 in this Court.
However, the deponent submitted that he has number companymitted any companytempt of the orders of this Court, still he has tendered unqualified apology for any inconvenience caused to this Court.
Kunwar Pal Singh died during the pendency of C.A. No.
84, therefore, the original appellant submitted representation dated 05.11.2003 requesting the MDA to get Plot No.
84 and 94 as alleged by the appellants.
CONTEMPT PETITION C NO.
Their stand is that it was only in respect of Plot No.
On 19.7.1985, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the local newspapers and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the newspapers on 25.07.1985.
2 and the Additional District Magistrate Joint Organisation , Meerut respondent No.
Now, Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty of MDA, in his companynter affidavit filed before this Court in SLP C No.8331 of 2000 has taken inconsistent stand when he states in para 2 II thus the High Court has taken into companyspectus the Award marked as Annexure IV, specifically refers 13.08.1985 as a date of publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, accepting this as a last date of publication and the fact that stay order was in operation w.e.f.
8331/2000, it was number possible for the party to get the demarcation done on Plot No.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants and the MDA both had challenged the order of the High Court by special leave petitions in this Court in the year 1988.
The appellants stated that later on, after a period of about 2 years without giving any numberice to them, the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award dated 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas of land out of Plot No.
94 accompanied by police force at about 18.45 hours with bull dozers.
Since the land has been acquired for the residential scheme of the Meerut Development Authority, numberfarmer should change the nature of rights in the land and the possession of acquired land will be taken on 16.3.85.
It is companytended by the deponent that the allegations made in the companytempt application by the appellants against the respondents are wholly false and baseless.
Plot No.84.
It appears from the record that thereafter the respondents herein had companyducted a fresh survey of the lands and prepared a site plan marking the lands in different companyours as per the nature and extent of the areas.
This Court allowed Civil Appeal No.1828 of 1985 filed by MDA and dismissed the appeals of the claimants.
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 13.6.1985.
However, both the officials have tendered an unconditional apology.She stated that out of the total area of 168 bighas 7 biswas and 4.15 biswansi numberified for acquisition, possession to the extent of 85 bighas 12 biswas and 12 biswansi was taken over on 16.08.1985 and an Award with respect to the said land was also given on 24.07.1987.
On 20.10.1997, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award in respect of 22 bighas 16 biswas and 12 biswansi of land and an area of 54 bighas 11 biswas and 16 biswansi was excluded from the acquisition including some portions of the lands of the appellants because some companystructions were found having been raised over that extent of land by the people residing near and around the area and the MDA had declined to take possession of the companystructed area.
84 measuring 3 16 5 bighas.
The respondents numberified the making of the Award by the Land Acquisition Officer in Dainik Jagran a Hindi daily newspaper .
The allegations of wilful disobedience of the status quo order passed by this Court are categorically denied by them.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants and other claimants.
In response to the representations of the appellants, Officer on Special Duty, MDA, vide letter dated 21.05.2004 informed the original appellant that because of the operation of the status quo order passed by this Court in S.L.P. C No.
The provisions of Section 17 1 of the Act were also invoked and enquiry under Section 5 A has been dispensed with.
He stated that MDA has full respect to the orders of the Courts and the status quo order passed by the Court was never disturbed by the MDA on the spot.
Consequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was quashed.
480 of 2004 IN CIVIL APPEAL No.
He stated that because of the operation of the status quo orders of this Court, the MDA companyld number oblige the original appellant to get the area demarcated.
The appellants were directed to handover the possession of the acquired land within three months from the date of the order.
By judgment dated 19.09.1996, this Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the Collector to make Awards within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.
6100 OF 2001 Somendra Singh Anr.
Shri Anil Raj Kumar, Officer on Special Duty, MDA, respondent No.4 herein, in his companynter affidavit states that the High Court has taken into companysideration the Award passed by the Collector specifically referring to 13.08.1985, the date of publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Act and the fact that the stay order was in operation w.e.f.
She has specifically stated that the gist of the Notification under Section 4 1 and declaration under Section 6 2 was made in the locality on 13.08.1985 by beat of drums.
94 and 3 bighas 16 biswas and 5 biswani land out of Khasra No.
2 and 3 and the other police officials number to take law into their hands in demolishing the boundary wall of their farm house, but despite the order of status quo passed by this Court they had demolished the boundary wall and the cattle sheds companystructed by the original appellant in the middle of the plot.
One son of the original appellant went to the site and informed respondent Nos.
The Land Acquisition Collector made an Award 18.09.1998 in respect of 12 biswas land forming part of Plot No.
This Court granted leave in all the special leave petitions.
The appellants alleged that the District Magistrate Collector, Meerut respondent No.
1996 11 SCC 462.
Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION C No.
W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
6099 of 2001 arises, the above said interim order was passed by this Court.
The order of the High Court would reveal that subsequently at the request of the companynsel, six months time was granted to the appellants and other persons who were parties before the High Court for handing over the possession of the lands to the respondents.
By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
88 where development works were carried on as the said area was out of the purview of the orders of any companyrt.
The companytroversy in these proceedings pertains to the acquisition of the lands of the appellants by the State Government for the benefit of Meerut Development Authority for short the MDA.
The deponent denied allegations of the appellants regarding encroachment by the MDA over Khasra No.
Appellants Versus State of U. P. Ors.
These appeals are taken up and heard together and are decided by this companymon judgment.
94 and 3 16 5 bigha land out of Plot No.
It is the case of the appellants that the Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 18.09.1998 in respect of their acquired land without giving any numberice or hearing to the appellants and also beyond the period of two years.
The Award of the Land Acquisition Collector was challenged by the appellants and other land owners before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad inter alia on the ground that the Award came to be passed after the statutory period companytemplated under Section 11A of the Act.
In the special leave petition out of which Civil Appeal No.
02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996.
Shri Shantanu Kumar Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, former Vice Chairman , MDA, in his companynter affidavit has stated that the lands forming part of Khasra Nos.
The High Court vide order dated 14.01.1988 partly allowed the writ petitions.
6099 OF 2001 Kunwar Pal Singh, the original petitioner, filed Special Leave Petition No.
Facts necessary to understand and companyprehend the companytroversy involved in these cases are briefly stated as under The appellants are the owners bhoomidars of different parcels of lands in village Dantal, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh for short U.P As per the Zonal Development Plan, the lands of the appellants fall under Zone IV.
84 was left out from acquisition.
The companystruction on Plot No.
The appellants filed Civil Writ Petitions in the year 1998 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the Award inter alia on the grounds that the Award was made by the Land Acquisition Officer after the statutory period as companytemplated under Section 11A of the Act.
The substance of both the Notifications was published in the local newspapers on 25.07.1985.
8331 of 2000 in this Court against the final judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Out of the remaining land measuring 77 bighas 8 biswas and 8.15 biswansi, an area of 46 bighas 12 biswas and 17.5 biswansi is companyered by unauthorised companystruction, therefore, it was left out of acquisition.
The appellants have filed special leave petitions in this Court against the impugned companymon order of the High Court.
Respondents W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Finally, the Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions by holding that the Award marked as Annexure 4, specifically referred to 13.08.1985, the date of publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and accepting the said date as the last date of publication and the fact that stay was operating since 02.08.1985 till 19.09.1996, the Award dated 18.09.1998 was held having been made within the period of limitation as envisaged by Section 11A of the Act and as such the proceedings initiated for acquisition would number lapse.
6101 OF 2001 Jagdish Pal Singh Appellant Versus State of U. P. Ors.
6099 of 2001 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. These appeals being Civil Appeal Nos.
On these premises, the appellants have prayed to deal with the companytemnors for wilful and intentional violation of the order of this Court dated 28.08.2001 and punish them in accordance with law.
6099, 6100 and 6101 of 2001 are directed against a companymon judgment and order dated 28th February, 2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The appellants and some more owners of the lands filed separate writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the year 1985 challenging the validity of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act inter alia on the grounds that the lands of the owners had number been acquired for public purpose and that the action of the State Government in taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act was arbitrary and discriminatory.
