eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 171 of 19710/21/2011to the writ petition which award was declared after more than 6 and a half years from issuance of declarationunder Section 6. The rate of compensation under the 1997 Rules, as has been also noted in the award wasRs.378.92 per square yard for "Pushtaini" and Rs. 329.50 per square yard for "Gair Pushtaini", whereas in theaward under Section 11(1), the rate fixed for per square yard was Rs.156 which has been mentioned in theaward. The pleadings of the petitioners as noted in paragraph 16 and the apprehension which has beenexpressed in the pleadings come true by the events as noted above.Learned counsel for the petitioners have rightly contended that the acceptance of compensation under the 1997Rules, is not voluntarily, but is due to force of circumstances and the compulsion. The land of poor farmers havebeen acquired and possession having been claimed to be taken by invoking Section 17 (1) of the Act, 1894petitioners are deprived of their property and they had no option, but to accept whatever the meagre amount wasoffered by the respondents under the agreement to somehow survive.Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that in case the petitioners do not accept the amount underthe agreement they will not be paid anything for years together since the declaration of the award takes severalyears. Accepting the amount under above circumstances cannot be said to be acceptance of amount voluntarilynor such acceptance can be treated to be waiver of rights of the petitioners to challenge the acquisition. Thesubmission of Shri S.P. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenors that remedy was availableto the land owners/petitioners to go under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 after accepting the compensation under theagreement also cannot be accepted. The remedy under Section 18 of the Act, 1894for enhancement of thecompensation is not available to those persons who have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules.Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Radhy Shyam(Dead) through LRs & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2011) 5 SCC 553.In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court had occasion to consider similar issues. In the said case notifications ofland acquisition issued under Section 4 read with Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) as well as declaration under Section6 was challenged of Village Makaura District Gautam Budh Nagar. Writ petition was filed by the land ownerswhich was dismissed by the High Court. Against which the appeal was filed. One of the submission raised beforethe Apex Court was that the land owners having accepted the compensation under the 1997 rules, they cannot beallowed to challenge the acquisition. Following observation was made by the Apex Court in para 20 which isquoted below:-"20. The resultant effect of these acquisitions is that the land owners, who were doing agricultural operations andother ancillary activities in rural areas, have been deprived of the only source of their livelihood. Majority of themdo not have any idea about their constitutional and legal rights, which can be enforced by availing theconstitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution. They reconcile with deprivation of land byaccepting the amount of compensation offered by the Government and by thinking that it is their fate and destinydetermined by God. Even those who get semblance of education are neither conversant with the functioning ofthe State apparatus nor they can access the records prepared by the concerned authorities as a prelude to theacquisition of land by invoking Section 4 with or without the aid of Sections 17(1) and/or 17(4)."Again the Apex Court had occasion to consider another case of land acquisition in which the acquisition of land ofVillage Sahberi of District Gautam Budh Nagar was involved is Greater Noida Industrial Development AuthorityVs. Devendra Kumar & Ors. 2011 (6) ADJ 480.In the said case the issue of accepting compensation by the land owners under the 1997 Rules was also raised.The submission made before the Apex Court in the said case was that the relief should not be granted to thosewho have accepted compensation. The Apex Court observed that the situation in which the people belonging tothis class are placed does not leave any choice to them to make compromises and try to salvage whatever theycan. Following observation was made in paragraph 39 which is quoted below:-"39. We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that quashing of theacquisition proceedings should have been confined to those who had not accepted the amount of compensation.Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the acquisition of land was vitiated due to want of good faith andthe provisions of the 1894 Act had been invoked for a private purpose, there could not have been any justificationfor partially sustaining the acquisition on the ground that some of the land owners or their transferees hadaccepted compensation by entering into an agreement with the Authority. The situation in which the peoplebelonging to this class are placed in the matter of acquisition of their land leave a little choice to them but to makecompromises and try to salvage whatever they can. Therefore, even though some persons may not have resistedthe acquisition and may have accepted the compensation by entering into agreements, it is not possible to find