Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1843 of 1976 Petitioner :- Bharat Varshiya National Association Malviya Pushtakalaya Respondent :- The U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad And Others Petitioner Counsel :- T.S.Dabas,B.S.Varshneya,M.K. Gupta,Sant Prakash,V.K. Gupta Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,B.D. Agarwal,R.N. Bhalla,R.N.Bhatt,Ravi Kant Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Hon’ble Yogesh Chandra Gupta,J.
This writ petition has been pending in this Court since long time.
Sri M.K. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by passage of
time, except one relief as sought in the writ petition, the other reliefs have
become redundant. It is, therefore, not necessary for this Court to notice the
facts in detail.
The present writ petition was filed challenging the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of 3878 sq.
metres land of Malviya Pustakalaya, a public institution situate at Rasalganj,
Aligarh.
The petitioner claims that there is an educational institution under the name
and style of ‘Bhart Varshiya National Association’ which was formed in the
year 1878 and was registered on 18-7-1887 in the office of Registrar of Joint
Stock Companies, North West Provinces and Avadh with its aims and objects
which were formed by the society. To achieve the aims and objects of the
Association, a public library was started at the leased land in the year 1882-84
by the lease deed and the same was made a Lyall Library. The petitioner
claims permanent lessee of the said piece of land which has been acquired by
the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the validity of
land acquisition proceedings are no longer in dispute, it is not necessary to
notice the details in this regard. Confining his arguments to a limited extent,
Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on admitted
facts, the petitioner is entitled to get a part of compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act, being permanent lessee of the land in question. He invited
attention of the Court towards the lease deed, the letter dated 20-7-1987
written by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge, Aligarh
and its reply by the learned District Judge, as also the award.
It may be noted that the State Government has not filed any counter affidavit
in the present writ petition. Only one counter affidavit by U.P. Avas Evam
Vikas Parishad disputing the pleas raised in the writ petition with regard to
acquisition of the land has been filed. None is present on behalf of U.P Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad. Learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. submits
that the present writ petition, in the absence of Nagar Palika Aligarh, as a
respondent, is not maintainable.
Considered respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
As noticed hereinabove, Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
has confined his arguments to a limited extent that a writ of mandamus be
issued directing the District Judge, Aligarh to register the reference under
Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act.
In contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that from the award it appears
that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner Association under
Public Premises Act and the said proceedings were pending when the award
dated 15-9-1986 was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as is
apparent from the award itself, the petitioner is not entitled to get any
compensation.
Undoubtedly, from the award it appears that the land in dispute was
permanently leased out to the petitioner Association in the year 1890. It also
appears that the said land is a Government nazul land and was in the
management at the relevant point of time with Nagar Palika, Aligarh. It also
appears that the proceedings under Public Premises Act were initiated against
the lessee, but its outcome, if any, is not on the record.
Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that all these facts shall be examined
by the reference court while determining the apportionment of the
compensation amount to the petitioner. All the pleas shall be open to the
parties for consideration before the reference court. When the matter has been
referred by the Special Land Acqusition Officer to the civil court under
Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is incumbent upon the civil
court to decide the said reference on the basis of the evidence which may be
led by the respective parties.
It appears from the record that some correspondence took between Special
Land Acquisition Officer (II), U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kamla Nagar,
Agra and the office of the District Judge, Aligarh. In para-16 (J) of the writ
petition, which was introduced through amendment, it has been stated that on
enquiry from the office of the District Judge, Aligarh it has been learnt that
the District Judge has not formally registered the reference in pursuance of the
letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (II), Agra dated 20-7-1987. In
para 16(K) it has been further stated that the petitioner Association had not
received any notice from the court of District Judge, Aligarh or from any
other court regarding any reference having been made to it for deciding the
question relating to the person entitled to the compensation. These averments
remain uncontroverted. This being so, it is desirable that the District Judge,
Aligarh be asked to proceed with the reference and decide the same in
accordance with law on the basis of the basis of evidence which may be
brought on record by the parties. This being so, it is not necessary for us to
discuss the two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
being Indra Prasad Vs. Union of India and others (1994) 5 SCC 239 and
Brij Behari Sahai and others Vs. State of U.P. (2004) 1 SCC 641. These
decisions touch the merits of the case which will be examined by the
reference court at the appropriate stage.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally. No
order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010
ALS