Asso. & Ors Vs. S.K. Bhargava & Ors  Insc 124 (22 February 2005)
Singh & Arun Kumar
office report) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 6747 of 1999 (With office report)
Civil Appeal NO. 6836 of 1999 (With office report) WITH
Cont.Pet.(Civil)324/2003 in CA.6747/1999 WITH Cont.Pet.(Civil)483/2004 in CA
Date: 22/02/2005 These Appeals were called on for
MR. JUSTICE B.P. SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR For the parties: Mr.P.P. Rao,
Sr.Adv. Mr. R.P. Gupta,Adv. Mr.S.L. Gupta, Adv. Mr.Sushendra K.Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar,Adv. Mr.S.Wasim A.Qadri, Adv. St.of U.P. Mr.R.K. Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Mohd. Saud, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv.
hearing counsel the Court made the following J u d g m e n t No orders on
appeals are partly allowed in terms of the signed judgment.
Dhingra) Court Master (Vijay Dhawan) Court Master [Signed judgment is placed on
the file] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL Nos.6746 OF 1999 U.P.PARENTS ASSOCIATION & ORS Appellant (s) VERSUS
S.K.BHARGAVA & ORS Respondent(s) WITH C.A.No.6747/1999, C.A.No.6836/1999
WITH Cont.Pet.(Civil)324/2003 in CA 6747/1999
WITH Cont.Pet.(Civil)483/2003 in CA 6747/1999
three appeals have been preferred by the, the U.P. Parents Association and
Ors., State of Uttar Pradesh and by the Management of the City Montessori
School, Lucknow impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench dated 26th May, 1998 in Writ Petition No.112 (MB) of 1980 whereby
the acquisition in question relating to land measuring about 23,000 sq.ft.was
quashed by the High Court.
facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was issued by the
State Government proposing to acquire the land in question for the benefit of
the City Montessori school. The said notification was followed by a
notification under Section 6 of the Act. The notifications were challenged on
the ground that the acquisition should not be made in favour of and for the
benefit of a private school, and in any event, the procedure under Chapter VII
of the Act ought to be followed. It was stated that the writ petition had been
filed by Shri S.K. Bhargava, alleged tenant of a portion of the land in
question to circumvent the decree of eviction passed against the school which
was the tenant of the entire land. The aforesaid contentions of the respondents
herein were upheld by the High Court and the acquisition was quashed. Against
the impugned order of the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred.
these appeals were pending in this Court, the Government proposed to act under
Section 48 of the Act and to de-notify the land from acquisition. This Court
granted time to the State of Uttar Pradesh
to do so by its order dated 21st September, 2004, which reads as follows:
was stated to us that the State Government was proposing to de-notify the area
occupied by the Respondents from out of the total land acquired. Even though
decision has been taken, till date the de-notification has not taken place. We
grant one final opportunity and adjourn these Appeals for three months to
enable the Government to de-notify the area occupied by the Respondents.
event if it is not de-notified by the next date, the Chief Secretary to remain
present in this Court personally." Thereafter, the State of Uttar Pradesh
has issued notification dated 5th November, 2004 and has sought to de-notify
the land in question measuring 6000 sq.ft.in exercise of power conferred under
Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended in 1984.
effect of the aforesaid notification is that 6000 sq.ft.of land which formed
part of the land and which was in possession of the respondent S.K.Bhargava,
who claimed to be a tenant in respect thereof, stands released from
acquisition. So far as the remaining land is concerned, the respondents have no
objection to this Court affirming the notifications acquiring the aforesaid
land in question and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court to that extent.
submitted on behalf of the appellants that there are good grounds to set aside
the judgment of the High Court because the facts of the case disclose that the
owner of the land accepted compensation in respect of the land in question and,
therefore, respondent S.K. Bhargava had no locus to challenge the acquisition,
he being only a tenant claiming a right under the owner of the land. At best he
could have claimed apportionment of compensation under the provisions of the
not necessary for us to go into this contention and other contentions urged in
support of the plea that the acquisition was valid, since the respondents
concede that acquisition in respect of the acquired land, except land measuring
about 6000 sq.ft.which has been released in exercise of power under Section
48(1) of the Act, may be upheld.
we partly allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and order of the High
Court quashing the acquisition in so far as it relates to the land measuring about
17000 sq.ft. of which possession was taken by the Government, and which does
not include that part of the land measuring about 6000 sq.ft. which is the
subject matter of the notification issued under Section 48(1) of the Act.
have not expressed any opinion on the validity of the notification issued under
Section 48 of the Act and this order will not prevent any interested person
from challenging that notification, if so advised.
these appeals are partly allowed and the impugned judgment and order in so far
as it relates to the lands measuring about 17000 sq.ft., is set aside.
orders on contempt petitions.