Sharawan Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others). The said batch of writ petitions was heard and

1. Heard Shri Samsad Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ambrish Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent, Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Bareilly Development Authority.

2. The present writ petition is preferred inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by Competent Authority, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioner upon Khasra No. 75 of the revenue village Dohariya, Tehsil & District Bareilly. "

3. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are resident of village Dohariya, District Bareilly. All the petitioners have purchased land through registered sale deed in village Dohariya; petitioner no. 1 purchased land admeasuring 50 sq. yard, petitioner no. 2 purchased land admeasuring 334.44 sq. meter, petitioner no. 3 purchased land admeasuring 60 sq. yard and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 have purchased land admeasuring 100 sq. yard (each) in Khasra No. 75, village Dohariya from Pratap Singh son of Netram through registered sale deed on same day i.e. 02.03.2009. It is claimed that all the petitioners have raised their residential house over the plot and residing alongwith their families. A notice dated 14.05.2025 have been issued to the petitioners to the effect that they have encroached over the gata/ khasra no. 75.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the notice dated 14-05-2025 which is issued under Section 26(A)(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 is per se unsustainable, as they have purchased the land and hence they are owner. He further submits that objection to the aforementioned notice has been filed by the petitioners, but the same has not been decided till date.

5. Learned counsel for the Authority vehemently opposed the petition and states that in the instant matter for planned development of Ram Ganga Nagar Awasiya Yojana, Bareilly a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 3rd June, 2004. The aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894, which came to be issued by the State Government on 4th July, 2005. The two notifications aforesaid were issued by the State Government in order to acquire land for the purpose of development of a residential colony. The aforesaid project was to be executed by the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly (for short, 'the B.D.A.'). It is to be noticed here that vide the above two notifications issued under the Act of 1894, a total area of 259.361597 hectares of lands in the Villages of Ahirola, Chandpur Bichpuri, Manohar alias Ramnagar and Dohariya came to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of development by the B.D.A.

6. He submits that later on some tenure holders challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing writ petition, wherein leading petition is Writ-C No. 17542 of 2010, (Sharawan Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others). The said batch of writ petitions was heard and dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court upheld the acquisition. The judgment of this Court dated 06.09.2016, above referred, was challenged by means of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal being SLP (Civil) No. 25147 of 2016, (Piyush Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others). The Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.01.2017. The parties, therefore, appear to be ad idem that the acquisition of the land in dispute was upheld up to the Supreme Court.

7. Learned counsel for the BDA, in this backdrop states that as the petitioners have purchased the land much later to the vesting of the land in the State which was handed over to the Development Authority on 02.03.2009, 31-10-2013 and 5-10-2009 by the State. He submits that once the petitioners are subsequent purchasers, no challenge could be made to the acquisition proceedings whereas the proceedings have already been finalized way back and approved up to the Apex Court. He submits that in case the original erstwhile owner has not lifted the compensation, the petitioners can avail remedy in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Sahni vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177.

8. He lastly placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 29.07.2022 passed in Writ C. No. 19100 of 2022, (Nasir Ali and other vs State of U.P. and other). He submitted that similar relief has been asked in the said proceeding by the petitioner of mandamus commanding the respondent not to carry out any demolition of house standing over the respective plot of land, until consideration of their case by the respondent. He said relief has been denied by the Division Bench.

9. Considering the factual situation, we have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It is not in dispute that the notifications were issued on 3rd June 2004 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act 1894 had also been issued by the State Government on 4th July, 2005 for the purpose of planned development through the B.D.A., wherein the huge chunk of land total area of 259.361597 hectares had been acquired. The acquisition proceeding had been approved by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal being SLP (Civil) No. 25147 of 2016, (Piyush Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others). Even later on, similar relief had also been pressed in Writ- C No. 19100 of 2022, (Nasir Ali and other vs State of U.P. and other) and the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 had also dismissed the same with detailed observation. For ready reference the operative portion of the judgment are extracted herein below:- " 19. In the present case, the petitioners are nobodies so far as the land in dispute is concerned. They are trespassers on State land, of which possession had already been taken in proceedings for acquisition. Merely because in the large tract of land acquired for a big scheme, some remote corner has remained unguarded, would not entitle the petitioners to claim on the basis of void sale deeds, even the semblance of a right based on possession. The assertion of the right to possession over such acquired land of the State is inherently so illegal that it cannot be regarded as a settled possession of the occupier, which can only be removed through the judicial process.

20. In the circumstances, there is no force in this writ petition. It fails and is dismissed"

11. In the facts and circumstances, we find that once urgency clause had been invoked and the acquisition had been approved up to the Apex Court, the land had been vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The petitioners have purchased the land much later to the vesting, as such the challenge to notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by competent Authority, Bareilly Development Authority is per se unsustainable as the petitioners are in illegal occupation. The Division Bench, while considering the judgment in Nasir Ali (supra) had also not accorded any such relief.

12. Considering the factual situation as well as the judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the relief as has been pressed is totally misconceived. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Samsad Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ambrish Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent, Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Bareilly Development Authority.

2. The present writ petition is preferred inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "I. Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by Competent Authority, Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to demolish the construction of the petitioner upon Khasra No. 75 of the revenue village Dohariya, Tehsil & District Bareilly. "

3. Facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are resident of village Dohariya, District Bareilly. All the petitioners have purchased land through registered sale deed in village Dohariya; petitioner no. 1 purchased land admeasuring 50 sq. yard, petitioner no. 2 purchased land admeasuring 334.44 sq. meter, petitioner no. 3 purchased land admeasuring 60 sq. yard and petitioner nos. 4 and 5 have purchased land admeasuring 100 sq. yard (each) in Khasra No. 75, village Dohariya from Pratap Singh son of Netram through registered sale deed on same day i.e. 02.03.2009. It is claimed that all the petitioners have raised their residential house over the plot and residing alongwith their families. A notice dated 14.05.2025 have been issued to the petitioners to the effect that they have encroached over the gata/ khasra no. 75.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the notice dated 14-05-2025 which is issued under Section 26(A)(4) of the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 is per se unsustainable, as they have purchased the land and hence they are owner. He further submits that objection to the aforementioned notice has been filed by the petitioners, but the same has not been decided till date.

5. Learned counsel for the Authority vehemently opposed the petition and states that in the instant matter for planned development of Ram Ganga Nagar Awasiya Yojana, Bareilly a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 3rd June, 2004. The aforesaid notification under Section 4(1) was followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894, which came to be issued by the State Government on 4th July, 2005. The two notifications aforesaid were issued by the State Government in order to acquire land for the purpose of development of a residential colony. The aforesaid project was to be executed by the Bareilly Development Authority, Bareilly (for short, 'the B.D.A.'). It is to be noticed here that vide the above two notifications issued under the Act of 1894, a total area of 259.361597 hectares of lands in the Villages of Ahirola, Chandpur Bichpuri, Manohar alias Ramnagar and Dohariya came to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of development by the B.D.A.

6. He submits that later on some tenure holders challenged the land acquisition proceedings by way of filing writ petition, wherein leading petition is Writ-C No. 17542 of 2010, (Sharawan Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others). The said batch of writ petitions was heard and dismissed vide judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. This Court upheld the acquisition. The judgment of this Court dated 06.09.2016, above referred, was challenged by means of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal being SLP (Civil) No. 25147 of 2016, (Piyush Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others). The Special Leave Petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.01.2017. The parties, therefore, appear to be ad idem that the acquisition of the land in dispute was upheld up to the Supreme Court.

7. Learned counsel for the BDA, in this backdrop states that as the petitioners have purchased the land much later to the vesting of the land in the State which was handed over to the Development Authority on 02.03.2009, 31-10-2013 and 5-10-2009 by the State. He submits that once the petitioners are subsequent purchasers, no challenge could be made to the acquisition proceedings whereas the proceedings have already been finalized way back and approved up to the Apex Court. He submits that in case the original erstwhile owner has not lifted the compensation, the petitioners can avail remedy in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Meera Sahni vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 177.

8. He lastly placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench on 29.07.2022 passed in Writ C. No. 19100 of 2022, (Nasir Ali and other vs State of U.P. and other). He submitted that similar relief has been asked in the said proceeding by the petitioner of mandamus commanding the respondent not to carry out any demolition of house standing over the respective plot of land, until consideration of their case by the respondent. He said relief has been denied by the Division Bench.

9. Considering the factual situation, we have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. It is not in dispute that the notifications were issued on 3rd June 2004 under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act 1894 had also been issued by the State Government on 4th July, 2005 for the purpose of planned development through the B.D.A., wherein the huge chunk of land total area of 259.361597 hectares had been acquired. The acquisition proceeding had been approved by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal being SLP (Civil) No. 25147 of 2016, (Piyush Kumar Agarwal and others v. State of U.P. and others). Even later on, similar relief had also been pressed in Writ- C No. 19100 of 2022, (Nasir Ali and other vs State of U.P. and other) and the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2022 had also dismissed the same with detailed observation. For ready reference the operative portion of the judgment are extracted herein below:- " 19. In the present case, the petitioners are nobodies so far as the land in dispute is concerned. They are trespassers on State land, of which possession had already been taken in proceedings for acquisition. Merely because in the large tract of land acquired for a big scheme, some remote corner has remained unguarded, would not entitle the petitioners to claim on the basis of void sale deeds, even the semblance of a right based on possession. The assertion of the right to possession over such acquired land of the State is inherently so illegal that it cannot be regarded as a settled possession of the occupier, which can only be removed through the judicial process.

20. In the circumstances, there is no force in this writ petition. It fails and is dismissed"

11. In the facts and circumstances, we find that once urgency clause had been invoked and the acquisition had been approved up to the Apex Court, the land had been vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The petitioners have purchased the land much later to the vesting, as such the challenge to notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by competent Authority, Bareilly Development Authority is per se unsustainable as the petitioners are in illegal occupation. The Division Bench, while considering the judgment in Nasir Ali (supra) had also not accorded any such relief.

12. Considering the factual situation as well as the judgment so cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the relief as has been pressed is totally misconceived. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Bhanu BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad