Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 – s. 17 proviso – Release of land from acquisition from State Government – Restoration order in favour of respondents as also order of payment of development fee – Set aside by the High Court – On appeal, held: Findings of the High Court that the land in question or the vicinity has not been developed is not the correct reading of the order passed as it has been clearly stated that 97.1% of the land acquired has been developed – Development has to be considered with respect to land acquired – Appellants categorically stated that they have constructed road, provided electricity, water and laid sewer lines and, thus, the respondents cannot avoid payment of development charges while seeking restoration of land – Judgment passed by the High Court setting aside the claim of development charges not sustainable and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: As per the averments made in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court and also in the impugned order, it is stated that 97.1% of the total land acquired is planned land. Small portion of 19 Bighas including the land of the respondents has not been planned for the reason that there were buildings on such area. Therefore, when the appellants state that the land of the respondents has not been planned or allotted is in the context that the area has not been plotted. It does not mean that the appellants have not carried out any development on the land in question. It is not some part of the land acquired is required to be taken into consideration, to find out as to whether any development has been carried out in the land acquired. The findings of the High Court that the land in question or the vicinity has not been developed is not the correct reading of the impugned order passed as it has been clearly stated that 97.1% of the land acquired has been developed. The development is to be examined in respect of the land acquired. It is categorical stand of the appellants that they have constructed road, provided electricity, water and laid sewer lines and, thus, the respondents cannot avoid payment of development charges while seeking restoration of land in terms of s. 17 of the Act. The judgment passed by the High Court setting aside the claim of development charges is not sustainable. The said finding is set aside. The order quantifying the development charges of Rs.1,57,22,056/- was raised without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Consequently, the demand letter/order is set aside with liberty to the appellants to communicate the amount incurred on acquisition and development charges in accordance with law. It is open to the respondents to seek remedy, if any, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in accordance with law. [Para 9-11] [1138-G-H; 1139-A-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.