Case: NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LT. COL. J. B. KUCHHAL (DEAD)

and NOIDA Export Processing Zone Complex. The total land proposed to be acquired is 91-11-0 bighas and out if this 25-19-7 bighas is marked for residential complex, 2-4-0 bighas for road, 9 bighas for bus depot and 54-7-13 bighas for green belt. There was a big Nala having width of about 80 ft. and green belt proposed on both sides of Nala. It was denied that the appellant has no scheme or plan and the requirement is for public purpose.11. The High Court noticed that the same notifications were challenged by one Daya Ram Tyagi and some other tenure holders and that the writ petitions had been dismissed. The said judgment of the High Court has been reversed in appeal by this Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2011 in Civil Appeal No. 7237 of 2011 Daya Ram Tyagi (D) through LRS. and others v. State of UP and others and the impugned notifications have been quashed. The Court held as under:"21. Though, various authorities have been cited at the Bar but we find that in respect of acquisition notifications in question, the matter is squarely covered by Supreme Courts judgement in Daya Ram Tyagi and others (supra) wherein these very notifications have been quashed on the ground of illegal exercise of power under Section17 and dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894. Since these very acquisition notifications were involved in the aforesaid judgment, the same is binding on us and we cannot take a different view."12. Therefore, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned notifications in so far as the writ petitioners lands are concerned.13. Having heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in quashing the notification having regard to the judgment of this Court in Daya Ram Tyagi (supra).14. At this stage, Shri Ranjit Kumar submits that the High Court was not justified in directing determination of compensation of lands in dispute at twice the market value which would be determined in ac- cordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was further contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar that the writ petitioners had failed to establish their right and title in the land ac- quired. Therefore, the question of payment of compensation to the writ petitioners does not arise.15. On the other hand, Dr. Singhvi submits that the writ petitioners have produced documentary evidence in support of their contentions that they are the owners of the land. In this regard, he has taken us through the materials produced before the High Court.16. The High Court has considered this issue. The reasons assigned for determination of compensation are as under:"23. It is in these peculiar facts and circum- stances and looking to the facts that though re- spondents are clearly guilty of going ahead with constructions over a land which was not legally acquired and acquisition notification was already set aside by Supreme Court vide judgement dated 23 rd August, 2011, in respect of some of the ten- ure holders whose land was also acquired under same acquisition notifications, therefore, respon- dents should have been careful enough not to create/change nature of property till pending writ petitions are decided, but they went ahead and changed nature of land in dispute ignoring com- pletely illegality they have already committed and also suffered in some cases involving same dis- pute and acquisition notifications.This act on the part of respondents needs to be deprecated. We have no hesitation in holding that authority concerned who permitted it, went to the extent of undertaking illegal construction putting huge public exchequer at risk.24. Having said so still we find that it would be very harsh on the part of this Court to get entire constructions demolished and restore possession of disputed land of petitioners.25. In the facts and circumstances, we mould re- lief and allow both these writ petitions in follow- ing manner:i) Acquisition notifications dated 30 th November, 1989 and 16 th June,1990 in so far as relate to petitioners? land are hereby quashed, since dis- pensation of inquiry under Section 5A by invoca- tion of urgency under Section 17 is patently ille- gal as held in judgement of Supreme Court in Daya Ram Tyagi and others (supra).(ii) Respondents shall determine compensation of disputed land at twice market value which would be determined in accordance with provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettle- ment Act, 2013, and pay the same to petitioners within three months from the date of judgment, failing which they shall restore possession of dis- puted land to petitioners by removing construc- tions, if any, raised thereon.(iii) Petitioners shall also be entitled to cost which we quantify to Rs.5,00,000/- in each set of writ petition?17. It is necessary to notice that it has now been almost 28 years since the subject land had been notified for acquisition. The appellant has put up construction over the land without acquisition of the said land putting public exchequer at risk. It is no doubt true that the writ petition was dismissed for default. However, it has been restored sub- sequently and the restoration order has not been challenged. The ap- pellant has not produced any document to substantiate its contention that the writ petitioners are not the title holders of the land. On the other hand the writ petitioners have produced their title deeds in rela- tion to the said land.18. We are of the view that the appellant is not justified in contend- ing that the writ petitioners are not the title holders of the land. Hav- ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the direction of the High Court for determination of com- pensation of the disputed land is just and proper.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. Having heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in quashing the notification having regard to the judgment of this Court in Daya Ram Tyagi (supra).It is necessary to notice that it has now been almost 28 years since the subject land had been notified for acquisition. The appellant has put up construction over the land without acquisition of the said land putting public exchequer at risk. It is no doubt true that the writ petition was dismissed for default. However, it has been restored sub- sequently and the restoration order has not been challenged. The ap- pellant has not produced any document to substantiate its contention that the writ petitioners are not the title holders of the land. On the other hand the writ petitioners have produced their title deeds in rela- tion to the said land.18. We are of the view that the appellant is not justified in contend- ing that the writ petitioners are not the title holders of the land. Hav- ing regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also of the view that the direction of the High Court for determination of com- pensation of the disputed land is just and proper.