Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said the land acquisition process would be vitiated on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, if there is absence of any individual or public notice to the tenure holders.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and K V Vishwanathan accordingly declined to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's order of October 7, 2015.

The High Court had quashed acquisition in respect of a plot, situated within the revenue estate of village Hariharpur, Tehsil and District Lucknow, on the ground that the respondent tenure holders were not accorded opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition in accordance with Section 29 of the UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965.

"The 1965 Act mandates issuance of a preacquisition notice to such individuals whose land/property falls within the purview of the proposed Scheme. On a liberal reading to such provision, the appellant, at best, could have claimed deemed or substantial compliance of audi alteram partem rule provided that Khasra No was expressly notified in the public notice," the supreme court noted. 

"Unfortunately, Khasra Nos. 672 and 673 are conspicuously missing in the public notice dated 17.07.2004. No individual notices were indisputably served on the respondents for the reason that they were not recorded as tenure holders of the subject land immediately before the issuance of a notice under Section 29 of the 1965 Act. In the absence of any public or individual notice proposing to acquire Khasra No.673, we find merit in the cause espoused on behalf of the respondents," it added.

The court, however, declined to hold or declare the respondents to be the true tenure-holders of the subject land in view of combative title dispute.

"All that we say is that in the absence of any public or individual notice, the observations made by the High Court to the extent that the respondents have been denie an effective opportunity to submit objections to oppose the acquisition in question, appears to be correct and based upon the record. That being so, the impugned judgment to the extent it holds that the acquisition process qua the plot stands vitiated on account of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, does not call for any interference," the bench said.

With regard to future course of action, the court said neither the public interest to utilise the subject¬land for the Scheme that has been substantially developed is frustrated nor the true tenure holders are deprived of the adequate compensation for their land.

It noted as per Section 55 of the 1965 Act, the compensation for the acquired land was required to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which stood repealed w.e.f. January 01, 2014 by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The compensation would be assessed in terms of 2013 Act.

The court, however, allowed the appropriate government to dispense with the procedure related to social impact assessment as major portion of land stood notified.

"We further direct that the awarded amount shall be kept in a nationalised bank in the FDR where it can fetch the maximum rate of interest. The FDR shall be renewed from time to time till the title dispute between the respondents and other claimants is resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction. Whosoever is found entitled to, the appellant Board shall release the compensation to them as early as possible but not later than four weeks after the final adjudication of the title dispute," the bench said.

The court asked the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature of the land, creation of third¬party rights or any encumbrance over the subject land until the award is passed. On the passing of the award and deposit of the compensation amount, the appellant¬ Board shall be at liberty to utilise the said land for the notified Scheme and/or for any other public purpose in accordance with law, it directed.