- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jasveer Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals challenge an order of the Allahabad High Court that refused to quash land-acquisition proceedings initiated by Notification dated 18-8-1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of a new broad-gauge railway line between Rampur and Haldwani in District Rampur (U.P.). Urgency was invoked; possession was taken on 19-9-1986 and an award followed on 22-9-1986.
The appellants received compensation, sought enhancement by reference under Section 18, obtained a higher award on 7-12-1988, and pursued first appeals decided on 29-1-2004. On 12-9-2005 the Supreme Court (Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2011 4 SCC 394) remanded the matter only for determination of statutory benefits.
Subsequently the appellants launched a series of writ petitions challenging either the quantum of compensation or the validity of the acquisition itself:
- Writ Petition filed 19-12-2005: High Court ordered redetermination (3-12-2010) but that order was set aside by the Supreme Court on 16-10-2012 in State of U.P. v. Jasveer Singh, C.A. No. 7535/2012, which remanded the case for fresh consideration.
- High Court, on 30-5-2014 (2014 SCC OnLine All 8465), dismissed the renewed challenge, holding it barred by laches.
- SLP (C) No. 27109/2014 was dismissed with liberty to invoke the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
- The appellants then filed W.P. No. 59918/2014; the High Court dismissed it on 24-9-2015 (2015 SCC OnLine All 8469), reiterating that the award had long since been made and upheld.
The present Supreme Court judgment affirms that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the land-acquisition proceedings of 1981 had lapsed because the award was allegedly “not a valid award in the eye of law.”
- Whether the appellants’ belated challenge to the acquisition was barred by delay and laches in view of earlier litigation and acceptance of compensation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The award dated 22-9-1986 was invalid; consequently, the entire acquisition should be declared lapsed and fresh compensation be paid at present-day market rates.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1975) 4 SCC 285 | Challenge to acquisition cannot be entertained after long delay once possession is taken and award made. | Cited by the High Court—and accepted implicitly by the Supreme Court—as barring the appellants’ delayed writ petition. |
| Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695 | Belated attack on completed acquisitions is impermissible. | Relied on to reject the fresh writ petition filed decades after possession. |
| Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 532 | Laches disentitle a petitioner from relief in land-acquisition matters. | Used to support the conclusion that the petition was “highly barred by laches.” |
| Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal, (2011) 5 SCC 394 | Reiterates bar of laches/waiver where land is already utilised. | Formed part of the chain of authority sustaining the High Court’s dismissal. |
| Royal Orchid Hotels v. G. Jayarama Reddy, (2011) 10 SCC 608 | Acquisition can be quashed where power of eminent domain is exercised fraudulently. | Distinguished by the High Court as inapplicable because no fraud was alleged in the present case. |
| Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2011) 4 SCC 394 | Earlier Supreme Court remand confined to statutory benefits, not to validity of acquisition. | Demonstrated that the appellants had already limited relief to compensation issues, undermining their present attack on acquisition. |
| State of U.P. v. Jasveer Singh, C.A. No. 7535 of 2012 | High Court should not have reopened issues already governed by the Supreme Court’s order; case remanded afresh. | Shows that subsequent writs were considered and yet the acquisition was upheld. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had:
- Accepted compensation, surrendered possession, and pursued statutory remedies for enhancement of compensation to finality.
- Repeatedly attempted to challenge the acquisition only after decades had passed, which the High Court classified as “highly barred by laches.”
The Court agreed with the High Court’s reliance on settled precedent holding that belated challenges to completed acquisitions cannot be entertained. It emphasised that:
- The validity of the award had already been questioned and rejected; the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed an SLP on the same point, merely leaving open recourse under the 2013 Act.
- The appellants offered no reason that could overcome the doctrine of laches or justify reopening of long-concluded proceedings where the land has been utilised for a public railway line.
Accordingly, the Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED.
The dismissal leaves the 1981 acquisition intact and finalises all challenges to its validity. The appellants may still pursue any distinct statutory remedies available under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, but no broader legal precedent is created beyond reiteration of the settled bar of laches against stale challenges.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.— These appeals have been preferred against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in Jasvir Singh v. State of U.P 2015 SCC OnLine All 8469 rejecting the prayer of the appellants for quashing the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notification dated 18-8-1981 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was “for the construction of New Broad Gauge Railway Line between Rampur and Haldwani” in the District of Rampur. Urgency clause was invoked. Possession of the land was taken on 19-9-1986. The award was made on 22-9-1986. The appellants preferred reference under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation which was decided vide award dated 7-12-1988 by the District Judge, Rampur. The first appeals against the said award were decided by the High Court on 29-1-2004 First Appeal No. 880 of 1993. This Court vide order dated 12-9-2005 in Jasvir Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer (2011) 4 SCC 394 remanded the matters to the High Court having regard to the grievance of the appellant against denial of statutory benefits.
2. On 19-12-2005 the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the acquisition proceedings which was decided by the High Court on 3-12-2010 2010 SCC OnLine All 3300 directing redetermination of compensation. The said order was set aside by this Court on 16-10-2012 in State of U.P v. Jasveer Singh Civil Appeal No. 7535 of 2012. It was observed that:
“After considering the pros and cons, without entering into serious controversies and making any comment on the merit of the case, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the judgment and order of this Court dated 26-11-2010 (2011) 4 SCC 288, which was passed in the presence of the counsel for both the parties, the High Court ought not to have heard the matter at all. Thus, the judgment and order impugned before us has lost its sanctity. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside.
However, in order to meet the ends of justice, we remand the case to the High Court to hear the writ petition afresh expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The matter may be assigned to any particular Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for final disposal. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all factual and legal issues involved in the case. The High Court is requested to deal with the relevant issues in detail.
More so, if the respondents are so aggrieved regarding withdrawal of their appeals, which had been remanded by this Court for determining the entitlement of interest under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and an application is made by the respondent to revive the same, the High Court may consider and decide the said application in accordance with law. All the matters shall be heard simultaneously by the same Bench if the appeals are restored.”
3. Thereafter, the High Court considered the contention of the appellants that the award in respect of compensation was no award in the eye of the law and though the possession was taken long back and railway line had been laid out, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be set aside and compensation was liable to be awarded at present market rate. The High Court rejected the said plea vide judgment dated 30-5-2014 in Jasvir Singh v. State of U.P 2014 SCC OnLine All 8465, (2014) 105 ALR 502 It was observed that objection of the appellants against the award had already been considered and remand by the Supreme Court on 12-9-2005 (2011) 4 SCC 394 was only in respect of statutory benefits. For the first time plea was sought to be raised in the writ petition against validity of acquisition which was impermissible in view of the law laid down by this Court in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 285, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695, Sawaran Lata v. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 532 and Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394. The judgment of this Court in Royal Orchid Hotels v. G. Jayarama Reddy (2011) 10 SCC 608 was distinguished as that case related to fraudulent exercise of power of eminent domain. The High Court concluded: (Jasvir Singh case 2014 SCC OnLine All 8465, (2014) 105 ALR 502, SCC OnLine All paras 45-47)
“45. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the writ petition is highly barred by laches and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone.
46. As has been observed above, the petitioners' main grievance is for enhancement of compensation, for which the petitioner has already filed First Appeal No. 880 of 1993 and First Appeal No. 401 of 1998 which appeals are being allowed by order 2014 SCC OnLine All 15658, (2014) 105 ALR 858 of the date, we see no reason to entertain the writ petition.
47. Although, various submissions on merits challenging the entire acquisition proceedings have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but we having taken the view that the writ petition is highly barred by laches, we do not find it necessary to enter into the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on merits.”
4. The appellant thereafter preferred SLP (Civil) No. 27109 of 2014 which was dismissed SLP (C) No. 27109 of 2014. However, it was observed that the appellants are at liberty to work out their grievance based on the new Land Acquisition Act (2013) by preferring appropriate proceedings. The appellant thereafter filed WP No. 59918 of 2014 from which these appeals have arisen.
5. The High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: (Jasvir Singh case 2015 SCC OnLine All 8469, SCC OnLine All para 9)
“9. From the facts as noticed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that not only the award had been made, the petitioners had also filed a reference application which was rejected and against the reference order, they filed first appeal, referred to above, which has also been dismissed. There is no substance in the allegations made.”
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the present case the award should be held to have not been validly made and on that ground the proceedings should be held to have lapsed.
8. We are unable to accept the above submission. It is seen from the above resume of the proceedings that the appellants were paid compensation and possession was duly taken. The appellants also preferred reference on which higher compensation was awarded and matter attained finality up to this Court. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which was held to be barred by delay and laches against which SLP was dismissed by this Court. Of course, an observation was made that the appellants could prefer appropriate proceedings based on their grievance under the 2013 Act.
9. The grievance of the appellants against acquisition proceedings on the ground that the award was not a valid award was rejected and SLP was dismissed by this Court but permitting a fresh challenge. The fact remains that the challenge of the appellants is barred by laches and the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity. Even if the appellants were permitted to lay a fresh challenge, they are required to overcome this legal bar which in our view the appellants have not been able to overcome.
10. We, thus, do not find any error in the view taken by the High Court. The appeals are dismissed.
Alert