A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addressed the procedural lapses in the acquisition of land under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, specifically under Section 29, concerning the issuance of pre-acquisition notices. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision that the acquisition process was vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The appellant failed to serve notice to the rightful tenure-holders, denying them an opportunity to file objections against the acquisition of Khasra No. 673. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency in land acquisition, the rights of affected parties under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the rule of audi alteram partem. Compensation was ordered to be assessed as per the 2013 Act, despite the acquisition beginning under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court balanced public interest and individual rights while issuing procedural guidelines for compensation.

Keywords:

Acquisition, Tenure-holders, Audi Alteram Partem, Pre-Acquisition Notice, Compensation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Chandra Shekhar and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 3855 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
March 5, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author:
Justice Surya Kant

vii) Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 585

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 29, Section 55 – U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965
• Section 24(1) – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None identified.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Land Acquisition Law, Administrative Law, Civil Procedure.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arose from a challenge to the procedural legitimacy of a land acquisition undertaken by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) for the Sultanpur Road Bhoomi Vikas Evam Grahsthan Yojna. The respondents, alleged tenure-holders of Khasra No. 673, contested the acquisition on the grounds of non-receipt of a pre-acquisition notice under Section 29 of the 1965 Act. The High Court had quashed the acquisition for non-compliance with procedural safeguards, prompting the Board’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Notification of Scheme: The appellant issued a public notice on July 17, 2004, identifying lands to be acquired under the Sultanpur Road scheme. Khasra No. 673 was not listed in the public notification.

2. Change in Revenue Records: The respondents claimed ownership over Khasra No. 673 as per mutation entries from 1999. Subsequently, in 2003 and 2004, entries were made in favor of other individuals, which the respondents alleged were fraudulent.

3. Procedural Lapse: The Board served notices under Section 29 to persons recorded as tenure-holders in 2004. The respondents, whose names were not in the revenue records, were excluded.

4. High Court Decision: The High Court found procedural defects in serving notices and quashed the acquisition of Khasra No. 673, directing an inquiry into revenue entries.E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Was the High Court justified in quashing the acquisition due to procedural lapses under Section 29 of the 1965 Act?
2. Should compensation be assessed under the 2013 Act despite the acquisition originating under the 1894 Act?
3. Can procedural deficiencies in serving notice vitiate the entire acquisition process?F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Substantial Compliance: The Board argued that serving notice to the tenure-holders as per revenue records satisfied the procedural requirements under Section 29.

2. Non-Entitlement of Respondents: The Board contended that the respondents were not the recorded owners of the land at the time of the notification.

3. Public Interest: The appellant highlighted that the acquired land had already been utilized for public purposes, making quashing the acquisition impractical.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Denial of Right to Object: The respondents argued that exclusion from the notice violated their statutory right to file objections under Section 29, which parallels Section 5A of the 1894 Act.

2. Fraudulent Entries: They alleged fraudulent changes in the revenue records and demanded an inquiry into these alterations.

3. Right to Compensation: The respondents sought compensation under the more favorable terms of the 2013 Act.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Mandatory Nature of Notice: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that failure to serve notice on the respondents violated their rights under Section 29 of the 1965 Act.

2. Compensation under 2013 Act: Compensation must be assessed under the 2013 Act, as the acquisition process had not attained finality before its enactment.

3. Balancing Public Interest and Private Rights: The Court allowed public utilization of the land but directed compensation mechanisms to protect the respondents’ rights.

b. Obiter Dicta

• The Court emphasized that procedural safeguards ensure transparency and protect tenure-holders’ rights against arbitrary acquisition.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. Compensation for tenure-holders to be assessed under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
2. Objections to be invited under Section 15 of the 2013 Act, bypassing the Social Impact Assessment due to practical considerations.
3. Directed the deposit of compensation in a nationalized bank until the title dispute is resolved.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reiterates the inviolability of procedural safeguards in land acquisition cases, ensuring fairness under the rule of law. By blending statutory mandates with pragmatic considerations, the Supreme Court balanced developmental needs with individual rights.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• None explicitly referenced.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965
• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894