Supreme Court - Daily Orders
U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Raj Kumar Chaturvedi . on 11 February, 2016
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6272 OF 2012
U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR CHATURVEDI & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6273 OF 2012
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6310 OF 2012
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6272 OF 2012
1. The challenge in the writ petition before the High Court was in respect of a notification dated 25.04.2008 cancelling an earlier notification dated 07.07.2005 by which the subject land was exempted in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 25.04.2008, inter alia, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by holding that the notification dated 07.07.2005 NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2016.02.16 17:42:41 IST was legal and valid inasmuch as no notice Reason:
2
under Section 9 of the Act was issued nor possession had been taken over under Sections 16 or 17 of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court held that there was no power to issue the impugned notification dated 25.04.2008 superseding the earlier notification dated 07.07.2005.
2. Before us, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court has committed a factual error in holding that no notice under Section 9 of the Act had been issued or that possession of the land had not been taken. The above-mentioned argument is sought to be canvassed on the strength of certain documents which have been laid before us along with memo of appeal. On being queried it is stated on behalf of the appellant that the said documents were also laid before the High Court but were not considered. The plea urged would find support from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court.
3
3. As a consideration of the said documents would require us to determine several connected questions/issues of fact and may also require looking into the documents in original, we are of the view that instead of entertaining this appeal any further, it would be more appropriate for the appellant to move the High Court for recall of impugned order, if it so desires.
4. We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal in the above terms maintaining the interim order passed by this Court for a period of six weeks, within which it will be also open for the appellant to seek interim relief from the High Court.
5. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6273 OF 2012
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the issues raised in 4 the present appeal are similar to the issues raised in Civil Appeal No.6272 of 2010.
2. Keeping in view the statement so made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the observations made by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6272 of 2012, as above, we dispose of this appeal on the same terms. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6310 OF 2012
1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. From the contentions advanced and the material placed on record, it appears that out of the total land acquired in the present case measuring about 11 Bighas 10 Biswas, an area of 1 Bigha 17 Biswani has been utilized for the purposes of road construction and on the remaining portion of land i.e. about 9 Bighas 12 Biswas 5 Biswani, old constructions exist and the appellant-U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has not been able to take possession of the aforesaid area of land. In such circumstances, the continued utility 5 of the said land (measuring 9 Bighas, 12 Biswas 5 Biswani) for the purpose for which the same was acquired is in serious doubt. Therefore, we will have no occasion to interfere with the order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(PRAFULLA C. PANT) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 11, 2016 6 ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.7 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 6272/2012 U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJ KUMAR CHATURVEDI & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) WITH C.A. No. 6273/2012 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) C.A. No. 6310/2012 (With Office Report) Date : 11/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi,Adv. Ms. Shashi Kiran,Adv.
Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Shivpati B. Pandey, Adv. Mr. R. D. Upadhyay,Adv.
Mr. M. P. Shorawala,Adv. Ms. Shruti Sen,Adv.7
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R C.A. Nos. 6272 & 6273 of 2012 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.C.A. No.6310 of 2012
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Asha Soni)
Sr.P.A. Court Master
(Signed order is placed on the file.)