Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.48(1), 4, 6 – United Provinces Town Improvement Act, 1919 – ss.36, 42 – Notification issued u/s.48(1), 1894 Act for release of the land of the respondents-land owners from acquisition – However, by another notification the aforesaid notification was cancelled – Latter notification challenged by land owners, set aside by High Court – On appeal, held: First Notification was secured by the respondents by false representations and by playing fraud – When the respondents wanted to ward off the acquisition, they claimed that there were cemeteries of their forefathers – However, after the first notification was issued they started selling the land to third parties, who do not share the same religious sentiments with the respondents – An order secured by fraud and misrepresentation will not confer any vested right – Thus, the land owners cannot pitch their claim either on the basis of vesting or on the basis of Art.300A – They cannot be allowed to contend that the land can be acquired only through a fresh process of acquisition – Impugned orders of the High Court set aside – Writ petitions filed by the respondents dismissed – Constitution of India – Art.300A.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48(1) – Notification under, if a quasi-judicial order – Held: No – Thus, the argument that the Government cannot fall back upon s.21, General Clauses Act to rescind an order u/s.48(1) is rejected – General Clauses Act – s.21
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 48(1) – Notification u/s.4(1) vis-à-vis u/s.48(1) – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power to issue Notification would include a power to rescind the Notification. This position was not contested by the respondents, when their attempts to have the land released from acquisition, proved unsuccessful on earlier occasions. As a matter of fact, on the application presented by the respondents on 28.02.1983, the Government issued a letter dated 30.01.1985 requesting the appellant-Parishad to initiate necessary action for exemption of the land, subject to the condition that the land owners will not sell the land. This condition was stipulated in view of the fact that the request of the respondent was based on religious sentiments due to the alleged existence of cemeteries of about 20 of their forefathers on the acquired land. But the proposal mooted by the State Government on 30.01.1985 was opposed by the Parishad on the ground that there was no mention about any cemeteries, when the land owners filed objections to the acquisition. In the light of such objections, the Government issued proceedings dated 27.06.1985 withdrawing the earlier proposal dated 30.01.1985. In a fresh representation made on 29.05.1999 it was reiterated that there are cemeteries and Mazaars of the forefathers of the land owners and that regular religious programmes were being conducted in the acquired land. It is on the basis of the said representation that the Notification dated 7.04.2003 was issued under Section 48(1). [Paras 11, 14][1068-E-G; 1069-C-D]
1.2 The land owners were actually playing hide and seek by pleading religious sentiments, leading to the issue of the Notification dated 7.04.2003 under Section 48(1). The Notification under Section 48(1) was invited by the land owners by making false representations. The land owners have actually played fraud upon the Government and secured the Notification dated 7.04.2003. Hence, they cannot be allowed to contend that the land can be acquired only through a fresh process of acquisition. The first Notification was secured by the respondents by false representations and by playing fraud. When the respondents wanted to ward off the acquisition, they claimed that there were cemeteries of their forefathers, but after the first notification was issued, they started selling the land to third parties, who cannot and do not share the same religious sentiments with the respondents. The second Notification dated 15.09.2005 which contains the list of sales made by the land owners. The enquiry conducted by the Housing Commissioner has revealed that the land mafia has taken over the land. An order secured by fraud and misrepresentation will not confer any vested right and that, therefore, the land owners cannot pitch their claim either on the basis of vesting or on the basis of Article 300A. [Paras 15, 24][1069-D-F; 1072-C-E]
2. A proceeding under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is administrative in nature as can be seen from the language employed. What is provided in Section 48(1) is the power/liberty to withdraw from acquisition. It is an administrative act. While a Notification for acquisition issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeks to take away an individual’s right to property, a Notification under Section 48(1) is actually the reverse or opposite. It confers benefit upon an individual and hence it is not supposed to be preceded by any enquiry. The essence of an order which is quasi-judicial in nature is that it is preceded by an opportunity of hearing to the party affected thereby. A notification under Section 48(1) does not warrant any notice or opportunity of hearing, to the original land owners. If at all any person will be aggrieved by the Notification under Section 48(1), it will be the beneficiary of the acquisition, which in this case is the Parishad, and not the land owners. Therefore, it can be understood if the Parishad makes out a grievance that their rights were taken away by the notification under Section 48(1) especially after the land vested in them. Therefore, the argument that a Notification under Section 48(1) is a quasi-judicial order is rejected. As a consequence, the argument that the Government cannot fall back upon Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to rescind an order under Section 48(1) is rejected. [Paras 20, 22][1070-F; 1071-C, F-H; 1072-A-B]
Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 4 SCC 494 : [2018] 10 SCR 481; H.C. Suman vs. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees CoOperative House Building Society Ltd. New Delhi and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 485: [1991] 3 SCR
839 – held inapplicable.
3. The impugned orders of the High Court are set aside and the writ petitions filed by the respondents are dismissed. Since the acquisition has been complete in all respects the appellant may proceed to implement the public purpose for which the land was acquired. [Para 27][1073-B-C]
Mutha Associates and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 304: [2013] 10 SCR 1051 – referred to.
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.