Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition in Uttar Pradesh: Protecting Property Rights

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Hamid Ali Khan (D) through LRS. & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., delivered a significant judgment on 23 November 2021, quashing the acquisition of land in Bulandshahr by the state government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The ruling emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards under Section 5A of the Act, highlighting the improper invocation of urgency powers under Section 17(4).

The petitioners, legal heirs of Hamid Ali Khan, challenged the notifications dated 11 April 2008 and 9 April 2009, which sought to acquire their land for a commercial-cum-residential scheme by the Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the acquisition process and ordering the return of the land.

Background of the Case

The land acquisition process began with a notification issued under Section 4(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act on 8 October 2004 for 52.361 hectares of land in Bulandshahr. The urgency clause under Section 17(4) was invoked, thereby dispensing with the requirement for a public hearing under Section 5A. The petitioners, whose land was initially excluded from this notification, later found that another notification had been issued on 11 April 2008, adding their land to the acquisition list.

The petitioners alleged that:

The urgency clause was misused to bypass the statutory right to a hearing under Section 5A.
Their land was falsely reported as being centrally located within the development scheme.
Authorities provided misleading information to justify the acquisition.
Despite the urgency clause being invoked, no significant development occurred for years.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Abhay Kumar, contended:

Their land had been excluded from the initial acquisition in 2004.
The urgency clause under Section 17(4) was unjustified as the project had already been delayed.
The land was not in the middle of the proposed development scheme, contrary to the authorities’ claims.
The existence of a cattle market on the land did not justify the acquisition, as they were willing to build a boundary wall to separate it from the residential scheme.
The authorities acted with mala fide intent and provided false information to justify acquiring their land.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents, represented by senior counsel Mr. R.K. Raizada and Mr. Ravindra Kumar, argued:

The land was essential for the proper implementation of the residential scheme.
The urgency clause was invoked in the public interest to avoid delays in the project.
The area was earmarked for development under the Master Plan of Khurja 2001.
The land was needed for widening roads, creating residential plots, and developing infrastructure.
Significant funds had already been spent on the project, and any disruption would hinder progress.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the state had sufficient grounds to invoke the urgency clause and bypass the landowners’ right to object under Section 5A. The Court noted:

The land acquisition notification under Section 17(4) was issued in 2008, but possession was not taken until 2009, demonstrating that there was no real urgency.
The delay in issuing the declaration under Section 6 contradicted the claim of urgency.
The authorities provided inconsistent justifications for acquiring the land.
The petitioners’ land was not in the middle of the scheme but at its periphery, contradicting the government’s claims.
Public participation and procedural safeguards under Section 5A are critical and cannot be ignored without valid reasons.

The Court referenced its earlier rulings in Radhy Shyam (2011) and Anand Singh (2010), reinforcing that urgency provisions should only be invoked in exceptional cases. It emphasized that dispensing with the Section 5A inquiry is an exception, not the rule.

Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the invocation of urgency under Section 17(4) was improper. The Court observed:

“The statutory authority under Section 5A of the Act is expected to give a fair hearing. It can stand between an uncalled-for proposal to acquire property. Disputed questions of facts in regard to the property to acquire the property are to be considered by the same Authority.”

Accordingly, the Court:

Quashed the notifications issued on 11 April 2008 and 9 April 2009.
Ordered the return of the acquired land to the petitioners.
Declared that the acquisition proceedings were invalid due to the misuse of urgency provisions.
Stated that the decision would not prevent the government from initiating a fresh acquisition following due process.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in land acquisition cases. Key takeaways include:

Protection of Property Rights: The judgment upholds the fundamental right to property by ensuring due process.
Limiting the Use of Urgency Provisions: The decision clarifies that the government cannot arbitrarily invoke urgency to bypass public participation.
Judicial Scrutiny of Land Acquisitions: Courts will closely examine land acquisitions to ensure compliance with statutory safeguards.
Accountability of Authorities: The ruling highlights the need for transparency and good faith in land acquisition processes.

By setting aside the acquisition, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that the right to be heard under Section 5A is a crucial safeguard against arbitrary state action. The judgment serves as a precedent for future cases where landowners challenge acquisitions based on procedural lapses.

Petitioner Name: Hamid Ali Khan (D) through LRS. & Anr..
Respondent Name: State of U.P. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
Place Of Incident: Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: hamid-ali-khan-(d)-t-vs-state-of-u.p.-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-23-11-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by S Ravindra Bhat
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category