(Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
Lucknow Industrial Development Authority (LIDA) _____ Appellant
v.
Raj Kumar & Ors. _______________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6203 of 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23874/2013], decided on July 10, 2018
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 6204-6212 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 28473-28481/2013)
Civil Appeal No. 6213 of 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2477/2015)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6203 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 23874/2013)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present is an appeal by the Lucknow Industrial Development Authority from the judgment dated 08.04.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in which it has been held that the Section 6 notification was issued after the period of one year from the last date of the publication of the Section 4 notification.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has indicated to us that, according to him, a large number of farmers have taken compensation under the U.P. Karar Niyamawali – 1997 Scheme by mutual Agreement. He has also argued that the entire notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration made under Section 6 cannot be struck down inasmuch as the notification dealt with hundreds of hectares of land.
5. In the present case, we are confined only to the land that belongs to the appellant. We may hasten to add that in the Supplementary Affidavit that was filed by the respondents way-back in January, 2018, it was specifically stated that a Special Leave Petition was filed only from the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 83 of 2011 whereas judgments in identical matters, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 35/2011, 38/2011, 39/2011 and No. 40/2013 pertaining to the same village Kurauni were not appealed against.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant wishes to verify whether this statement is correct. We have not adjourned the matter but we are disposing of this matter inasmuch as no counter affidavit has been filed to this additional affidavit of January 2018. However, we give the appellant the liberty to mention the matter if it is found that the aforesaid statement is factually incorrect.
7. With these observations, this appeal is disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6204-6212 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 28473-28481/2013)
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
9. Leave granted.
10. The present appeals are from a judgment dated 08.04.2013 passed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in which it has been held that the Section 6 notification having been issued beyond the period of one year from the last date of the Section 4 notification, and, taking the U.P. Amendment into account, would make the acquisition lapse.
11. We see no reason to disturb the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court except to observe that the declaration of lapsing will only be confined to the present respondents before this Court and not to persons who did not go to the court at all.
12. With these observations, the appeals are disposed of.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6213 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2477/2015)
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
14. Leave granted.
15. The present appeal is by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police against the judgment dated 08.04.2013 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in which the Court has held that as the Section 6 notification in the present case was issued beyond the period of one year, the entire acquisition has lapsed.
16. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that they were allotted 25 acres, out of the acquired land by the Lucknow Industrial Development Authority, and have paid a sum of Rs. 19 Crores (approx.). The formal letter of allotment is dated 27.06.2012; possession was handed over to the appellant on 05.09.2012, and a Memorandum of Understanding for construction of a boundary wall as well as certain structures on the said land was entered into with a third party, who was the successful tenderer, post a tender dated 08.04.2013 floated by the appellant.
17. We have been informed by the appellant that the present respondents have nothing to do with the aforesaid 25 acres of land which are allotted to the Authority, which is confirmed by learned counsel for the respondents.
18. In this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal but confine our judgment only to the respondents who appeared before the High Court.
19. It is made clear that the appellant’s land and the allotment made to them will not be affected by the High Court judgment.
20. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23874/2013
Lucknow Industrial Development Authority (LIDA) ________ Petitioner
v.
Raj Kumar & Ors ________________________________ Respondent(s)
([FOR FINAL DISPOSAL] and IA No. 123567/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 2477/2015 (XI)
SLP(C) Nos. 28473-28481/2013 (XI)
Date : 10-07-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishwajit Singh, AOR
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vijaya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Grover, Adv.
Ms. Manjula Gupta, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Kant, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR
Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Adv.
Uzmi Jameel Husain, Adv.
Daanish Ahmad Syed, Adv.
Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Goel, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Seth, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K.K. Mohan, AOR
Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. K.K.L. Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Chandola, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Kumar Mihir, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
Mr. Aditya Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Devvrat, AOR
Mr. M.P. Devanath, AOR
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Adv.
Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
21. Leave granted.
22. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
———
