Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

G. Validity of order of Resumption, dated 21.01.2013 passed under Section 117 (6) of the Act, 1950, by Commissioner Faizabad Division, over the Land recorded as Abadi under Category 6(2) of Paragraph A-124 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual H. Government cannot and does not acquire its own land, only resumption can be done in terms of section 117(6) of the Act, 1950 because right, title and ownership still continues with the State.

VIII.

Applicability of Durga Narain College and Adity Kumari School v. State of U.P., 2018 (140) RD 510 in the present case IX.

13. In the affidavits filed by the NTPC it was stated that for expansion of NTPC Tanda Thermal Power Project private land under different categories had been acquired in three villages in Tehsil Tanda earlier and later on Abadi land had been resumed by notification dated 21.02.2013 and land had been handed over to the NTPC Tanda. Being a beneficiary of such order of resumption, it was a necessary and proper party liable to be impleaded as a Respondent. It was also mentioned in such application that at present, out of a total of 68 houses situated in Plot No.364 Ga of village Salapur Rajor 48 house owners have taken compensation and their houses have been dismantled. Eight house owners have not taken compensation. One house owner has taken compensation, but his house could not be dismantled. There are 11 more unmeasured houses on the plot in question and the village is situated in the middle of Tanda Thermal Power Project and resumption has been done to ensure safety of the people living there and for sustainable operation of the Power Plant.

16. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioners copies of Parivar Register of only some of the petitioners showing that they were living in the village since very long have been filed.

17. An application for vacation of interim order has also been filed by NTPC, where it has been stated that the petitioners have not approached the court with clean hands and have intentionally not disclosed that identification of buildings/houses over the plots in question had been carried out in 2014 and 2015, and that a large numbers of villagers have already taken compensation and vacated the houses and have misrepresented their case before the Court, saying that they came to know of the resumption order only in October 2020. The land that has been resumed has been handed over to the NTPC for the Second Phase of expansion of the Tanda Thermal Power Project and compensation has also been paid by the NTPC yet intentionally, it has not been arrayed as a Respondent, although it is a necessary and proper party. The claim of the petitioners regarding land on which their houses stand having been settled with them under Section 9 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been disputed on the ground that no documentary evidence has been filed by the petitioners to show that their houses existed prior to the date of vesting. Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy was drafted by the NTPC as per guidelines issued from time to time by the State Government and the Central Government and the same was approved by the State Cabinet. Not only has the NTPC provided monetary compensation as aforesaid, resettlement measures like training for self-employment, community development, allotment of shops, and welfare activities has also been implemented for which an institutional mechanism has been created for monitoring. A copy of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 12.01.2014 has been filed as C.A.-1 to the Counter Affidavit. The petitioners and similarly situated persons, who can at best be said to be encroachers on village Abadi land, have been given four benefits, the cost of the land, the cost of the construction standing thereon including trees, etc., and also ₹9 lakhs or ₹11.5 lakhs as the case may be for each adult male member of the family of Homestead Oustees (HSO) as on 21.02.2013, the date of the order of resumption has also been given. The rate of the compensation for the land was determined by the State Government as per the Circle Rate prevalent at the time for the three villages concerned. Out of a total of 1238 HSO, 433 are similarly situated as the petitioners who are encroachers on Abadi land. Out of them 372 persons have already entered into an agreement and have taken the compensation amount. It has also been stated that out of the 1238 HSOs, 793 persons have entered into agreement and have all got compensation. The compensation provided to Home Stead Oustees on the basis of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy in pursuance of the resumption order 21.2.2013, is much more than what the petitioners would have been entitled to in case of compulsory acquisition. A comparative calculation chart has been filed as Annexure to the Counter Affidavit. It has also been stated that out of 116 houses situated in village Abadi of Salapur Rajor,93 have been dismantled.

59. The Division Bench in Rajendra Tyagi and others (supra)7, while dealing with the provisions of Section 4 and Section 117 (1) and (6) referred to the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Maharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P.5, and observed in paragraph 9 as follows: -

The effect of Section 117 (1) of the Act is that after the estate has vested in the State Government under Section 4, the State Government is empowered to direct that the land, among others things which had vested in the State, shall vest in the Gram Sabha or any other local authority established in respect to the village in question. Under Sub-Section (6), however, the State Government is empowered to amend or cancel any declaration or notification made by it and order resumption. When the State Government issues an order of resumption, the Gram Sabha or local authority as the case may be, is entitled to receive compensation on account only of development if any affected by it on or over the land or thing. Under the proviso to Sub-Section (6) of Section 117, the State Government upon resumption is empowered to make a fresh declaration, vesting the land resumed in the same or any other local authority, including the Gaon Sabha. The provisions of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (6) make it abundantly clear that the vesting of the land in the Gram Sabha or the local authority does not confer an absolute title which at all material times continues to vest in the State Government. Indeed, that is the basis on which the State under Sub-Section (6) of Section 117 is empowered to cancel or amend notification of vesting which has been issued under Sub-Section (1). Upon the issuance of such a notification, the gram Sabha or local authority in which the land has originally vested , is entitled to receive compensation in respect of development carried out by it thereon.