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 174 of 19710/21/2011"60. It is significant that this letter written by the Attorney Urmila Roy, on behalf of all the land owners spells outthat the owners had in fact been willing to negotiate the price for the land at the time when the acquisition werestill incomplete as only the Notification under Section 4 of the Act had, at that stage, been issued (4-12-2000). It isalso significant that the declaration under Section 6 had been issued on 29-11-2001 and the award rendered on27-12-2003. It is, therefore, evident that the land owners had, in fact, acquiesced to the acquisition and cannotnow turn around to say that the acquisition was bad in law."The said case was on its own fact and does not help the respondents in the present case. Insofar as, thesubmission of the respondents relating to acceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules are concerned, wehave already dealt the said submission while discussing the plea of waiver. We have already arrived at aconclusion that merely because the land owners have accepted the compensation under the 1997 Rules, theycannot be said to have waived their right for the same reasons as given above. We are of the view that mereacceptance of compensation under the 1997 Rules, does not amount to acquiescence by the land owners.Two cases cited by Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the intervener also need to be noted, are; K.M. AbbuChettiar vs. Hyderabad State Bank (AIR 1954 Madras 1001) and Allahabad Bank Limited vs. Kul Bhushan andothers (AIR 1961 Punjab 571). In K.M. Abbu Chettiar's case (supra) a suit was filed for ordering the HyderabadState Bank to release and deliver over to the plaintiff the goods. In the said case in paragraph 12 the Madras HighCourt laid down that where one of two innocent parties must suffer for the fraud of a third, that party should sufferwhose negligence facilitated the fraud. Following was laid down in paragraph 12 of the judgment:-"12. The foregoing discussion can be summarised in the following five propositions: (1) It is for the customer toestablish affirmatively that the signature on the disputed cheque is not that of the customer but a forgery., (ii) If thedrawer's cheque is forged or unauthorised, however clever the forgery is, the banker cannot debit his customer'saccount in case he pays the sum unless he establishes adoption or estoppel. (iii) What amounts to adoption orestoppel is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. (iv) In order to make the customer liable for the lossthe neglect on his part must be in or intimately connected with the transaction itself and must have been theproximate cause of the loss. (v) The Banker cannot set up either estoppel or adoption if his own conduct ornegligence has occasioned or contributed to the loss, the well settled principle being that where one of twoinnocent parties must suffer for the fraud of a third, that party should suffer whose negligence facilitated thefraud."The judgment of Punjab High Court in Allahabad Bank's case (supra) also laid down the same propositionfollowing the above Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court. The aforesaid two cases were on their ownfacts arising out of cases of forgery between the Bank and its customer. Those cases were on their own facts anddo not help the intervener in the present case.14. Third Party Rights and Construction:After publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act,1894 the State/Authority has claimed to have takenpossession under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894. In the main writ petition i.e. 37443/2011, Gajraj Singh & Ars. Vs.State of U.P. & Ors, date of taking possession was 05/9/2008 (572.592 hectares) and 12/1/2009 (1.453 hectares).The case of the respondents authority as well as the intervenors as pleaded in the counter affidavit filed by theAuthority and the affidavit filed by the intervenors is that after taking possession various allotments have beenmade for the purposes as was allocated to the area in question. In the counter affidavit filed by the Authority, inparagraphs 15, 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) has given the details of the allotments made to individual residential plotsas well as of Group Housing Plots. Paragraphs 15, 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) are quoted below:-"15. That after taking over of possession of the land in terms of the declaration dated 30.6.2008, developmentwork was carried out and the area stands demarcated as Sectors 2,3, Tech Zone IV, Eco Tech 13, Sector 10 andSector 11. The Authority has so far constructed roads, laid down sewer lines, electric transmission lines,developed green belts and carried out plotted, flatted ad Group Housing development works in respect of theaforesaid sectors in so far as they fall in the acquired land of Village Patwari. The remaining area of these sectorsfall in the acquired land of the adjoining villages and acquisition of these adjoining villages for the purpose ofplanned and integrated development has taken place separately. In the development works, carried out on theacquired land of Village Patwari, so far the respondent Authority has spend about Rs. 13,464.08 lacs.16(a). That in Sector 2, the individual residential plots have been allotted in terms of Scheme No.RPS-01 of theyear 2009. In this Scheme, 2000 nos. of individual residential plots were allotted through draw of lots. Also inSector 2, two Group Housing plots (One Partly falling under village Patwari) were allotted on 21.3.2010 and on01.03.2011 respectively under the scheme code BRS-01/2010 and BRS-04/2010.