TIKA RAM & Ors. v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2002 (1) SCC 689, referred to. E

1.8. The schemes of Ghaziabad Development Authority and Meerut Development Authority have D already been upheld by this Court in the earlier decisions. The basic objective of the Validating Act was to protect the scheme during the period 1984-89 only and subsequently, _there has been no such case of simultaneous notification in the State of Uttar Pradesh for the last two decades, as stated on behalf of the LOA. Even in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-111, the declaration u/s. 6 of the Act is published much after the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 17(4) proviso has to be read together with and in the light of Section 3 of the Amending Act and not de hors of each other in view of the statement of objects and reasons of that Act. This Court ironed the creases in the proviso added to Section 17(4) in Meerut Development Authority case. In one of the appeals, the land owners have already accepted the compensation, while in G another matter, the title of the Housing Society itself has been found to be infirm and not established as per the findings of the High Court. It is obvious that registration of the sale deed in respect of the Society is subsequent to the notification u/s. 4 of the Act and, therefore, inconsequential. The agreements in favour of that Society F H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. A under Section 17 of the Act and on that account, the whole exercise was bad. This question in the precise form, was not raised before the High Court. These documents were not the part of the High Court record. Since the source, authentication and verification of those B documents was not clear, these documents were not liable to be considered. [Paras 49 and 50] (970-F-G; 971- C-E] C .2.2. It cannot be said that where Section 5-A is dispensed with u/s. 17(4) of the Act, two Sub-Sections, i.e., (3) and (3A) of Section 17 would not appl.y. By this, the attempt is to dissect Sub-Section (4) in two parts, first.ly, where Sub-Section (1) and (2) are applicable and· secondly, where the enquiry u/s. 5-A is dispensed with. That is not the import of the language. Section 17 has to D be read in full. It plai, nly reads that where the possession is taken with the aid of Section 17(2), the compensation must fall in advance as per the provisions of Section 3A. In fact, Section 3A has been brought on the legislature with the sole purpose of providing a compensation for the possession taken. That is why 80% of the estimated compensation is to be paid because even thereafter, the award proceedings would go . on and the total compensation would be decided upon. The attempt to read that the payment of compensation is not required F where Section 5-A enquiry is dispensed with, would be doing violence to the language, firstly, of Section 3A and secondly, of Sub-Section (4) itself. The clear legal position is that the dispensation of Section 5-A enquiry is only and only to enable the State Government to take G possession under Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 17. A third category cannot be created so as to avoid the payment of compensation. [Para 50A] (972-A-F] E

2.3. If fault is found with the whole acquisition process on account of the non-payment of 80% of the H A. \ • ,,.. ~ ). - ~ ~ .. TIKA RAM &·ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 915 compensation, then the further question would be as to A whether the estimation of 80% of compensation is correct or not. A further controversy can then be raised by the landlords that what was paid was not 80% and was short of 80% and, therefore, the acquisition should be set at naught. Such extreme interpretation cannot be B afforded because indeed u/s. 17 itself, the basic idea of avoiding the enquiry u/s. 5-A is in view of the urgent need on the part of the State Government for the land to be acquired for any eventuality discovered by either Sub- Section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. c [Para 51] .[972-G-H, 973-A-B]

2.4. Even if the compensation is not paid or is short of 80%, the acquisition would not suffer. Therefore, even on the question as to whether in view of the admitted capacity to offer, tender and pay the compensation under sub-section (3) and (3A) of Section 17, the notification under Section 17(4) becomes void, there is no necessity of any reference. [Paras 46, 52 and 53] [967-E-F; 973-B- C; 975-B)