BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                     [2011] 3 S.C.R. 189


               BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS.                           ,~
                              v.
                  STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 2011)
                    FEBRUARY 23, 2011                             B
       [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

    LAND ACQUISITION ACT. 1894:
     s. 5-A - Acquisition of land - Objections of land-owners     c
- Plea that no opportunity of hearing was given - Held: The
original report placed before the Court indicates that not only
was the hearing afforded, but a/f the objections were
specifica/fy considered and decided.
     Land admeasuring 6.6 acres belonging to the                  D
appellants was acquired pursuant to Notification dated
20.3.1991 issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897
and declaration was issued on 28.2.1992. The award had
also been made. The writ petition filed by the land owners
was dismissed by the High Court.                                  E
    In the instant appeal filed by the land-owners it was
contended that proceedings were vitiated inasmuch as
no hearing was given to them before decididng their
objections u/s 5-A of the Act. It was also submitted that
possession of the lands had not been taken.                       F
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
    HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the original report produced
before the Court shows that the objections raised by the
land-owners were dealt with holding that there was no             G
question of any mala tides in the acquisition. It has also
been held that the acquisition for the purpose of planned
housing development was very much a public purpose.
The acquisition has been justified on account of increase
                             189                                  H
    190      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A in the population and fast industrial development which
  required houses for the persons of middle income group
  and lower income group, and of Scheduled Castes,
  Scheduled Tribes and backward classes. All this could
  not have been possible unless the appellants were heard
B and their objections were considered in detail. It is
  specifically mentioned in the report that the objectors
  have been heard. Once the original report suggests that
  the objectors were heard, it cannot be said that the
  appellants were not heard. It is, therefore, evident that not
c only was the hearing afforded, but all the objections have
  been specifically considered and decided. [Para 4-5]
  [193-E-G; 194-A; 194-E]
       Jayabheri Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of
    Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2010 (5) SCC 590 - referred to.
D
      1.2 As regards the affidavit of the lawyer appearing
  on behalf of the appellants in land acquisition
  proceedings, a perusal of the affidavit .shows that it is
  completely bereft of the dates and other details and,
E therefore, is not found fit to be relied upon. [Para 6) [194-
    G]
       2.1 So far as the plea that possession was not taken
  at all, is concerned, it is a question of fact as to whether
  the possession has been taken or not. However, the
F respondents have produced the possession receipt,
  where it is suggested that the possession was taken by
  the officers after going on the spot. The Court is
  thoroughly convinced that not only the possession was
  taken, but there are activities going on at the behest of
G the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. This is
  apart from the fact that this is a pure question of fact
  which has been answered by the High Court in no
  uncertain terms. The judgment of the High Court and the
  findings therein are confirmed. [para 7-8) [195-D; 196-B-
H CJ
  -
 BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & 191
                   ORS.
     Ba/want Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwan & Ors. etc.          A
etc. (1975) Suppl. SCR 250 = 1976 (1) SCC 700; Sita Ram
Bhandar Society, New Delhi Vs. Lieutenant Governor,
Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors. 2009 (10) SCC 501;
Dahyabhai Ranchhoddas Dhobi & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat
& Ors. 2010 (7) SCC 705 - referred to.                            B

                     Case Law Reference:
  · .· 2010 (5) sec 590       referred to           para 5

      1975 Suppl. SCR 250 referred to               para 5
                                                                  c
      . 2009 (10) sec 501     referred to           para 7
      201 o (7) sec 105 ·     referred to           para 7

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2020of2011.                                                       D

     From the Judgment & Order dated 07.09.2007 of the
Allahabad High Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 13734
of 1992.

     U.U. Lalit, Vikas Singh, Rajiv Dutta, Dinesh Dwivedi,        E
Saurabh Mishra, Sangram Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Surbhi
Mehta, Abhinav Mukerji, M.P. Shorawala, Jyoti Saxena, Shashi
Kiran, S.K. Dwivedi, T.N .. Singh, Manoj Kr. Dwivedi, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao for the appearing parties. ·
                                                                  F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. Land owners - appellants
                               . have challenged
                                             .     the judgment   G
of Allahabad High Court, challenging the dismissal of their
petition, whereby they had challenged the notifications issued
under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land· Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter called "the Acr for short). The lands comprised in
Plot Nos. 542, 543 and 544 of Village Jainsinghpura Bangar,
                                                                  H
    192        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A Mathura, U.P., measuring 6.6 acres were sought to be acquired
  by notification dated 20.3.1991 issued under Section 4 of the
  Act. Ultimately, after the enquiry under Section SA of the Act,
  the notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued
  on 28.2.1992. It is an admitted position that in pursuance
B thereof, the award has also been passed.

          3. Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned senior counsel appearing on
    behalf of the appellants urged before us that the High Court has
    not considered the major defects in the whole proceedings
    under the Act and more particularly, under Section SA of the
C   Act. The learned senior counsel vehemently argued that in
    pursuance of the notice inviting objections under Section SA
    of the Act issued by Collector, Mathura, published in the
    newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 21.3.1991, the appellants filed
    their objections under Section SA of the Act on 18.4.1991
D   ventilating their grievances. The appellants had also sought for
    an opportunity of personal hearing and accordingly, Shri Brij Pal
    Bhargava had appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer
    on 3.S.1991; however, on that date, he was informed by the
    Land Acquisition Officer that no reply was filed by the Land
E   Acquisition Department to the objections filed by the appellants.
    It was also informed that the officers were busy in election duty
    and, therefore, no hearing was possible on that date and the
    next date of hearing would be communicated to the appellants
    in due course. The learned senior counsel pointed out that
F   thereafter, no date was ever informed to the appellants and
    ultimately, no hearing was given and instead the Government
    came out with the publication of the notification dated 28.2.1992
    under Section 6 of the Act. The learned senior counsel asserted
    that in the absence of any hearing under Section SA of the Act,
G   the whole proceedings under the Act were rendered illegal. The
    learned senior counsel also relied on the affidavit of the lawyer
    of appellants in land acquisition proceedings asserting that no
    hearing opportunity was given to him.
          4. This contention was very strongly refuted by Shri Dinesh
H
 BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. &              193
           ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Dwivedi and Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel A
appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. and Mathura
Vrindavan ~evelopment Authority (respondent No. 3)
respectively. The original report was produced before us. Both
the learned senior counsel urged that on that day i.e. 3.5.1991,
a further date was given and the parties were heard and it is B
only thereafter that an investigation report was prepared under
Section SA (2) of the Act. We have been taken through the said
report wherein the objection on the part of the said Brij Pal
Bhargava was the non-publication of the public notices under
Section 4 of the Act. That contention was specifically refuted  c
by pointing out that there was proper publication of the notices
under Section 4 of the Act. The other objection raised was that
the whole acquisitior\ was done with mala fide intentions. It was
suggested in the obje.ction that about 150 acres of land for
housing development was already acquired about 20 years 0
back and yet no development had been made. It was also
urged that the acquisition of the land for the planned housing
development is not covered under the public purpose. It is
apparent from the report that all these objections were dealt with
holding that there was no question of any mala fides in the E
acquisition. It has also been held that the acquisition for the
public purpose of planned housing development is very much
a public purpose. The said acquisition has been justified on
account of increase in the population and fast industrial .
development which required the availability of the houses for
the persons of middle income group and lower income group, F
and of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward
class. The other objection raised was that the land was not
suited for the public purpose since there was 16 year old village
Abadi of about one and a half acre and there were number of
trees on two and half acre land. That question has also been G
dealt with in details holding that the Mathura Vrindavan
Development Authority would develop Public Park, School and
Play Ground on the acquired land. Even the objections raised
by one Devendra Nath Bhargava have been considered in
details by the Land Acquisition Officer. We are quite convinced H
    194       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A that all this could not have been possible unless the appellants
  were heard and their objections were considered in details.
  Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
  appellants urged that this Court had invited the original report
  and the original report did not show the factum of hearing. We
B have seen the original report and the order sheet. Indeed, there
  are dates given after the first date, on which date some of the
  objectors were also present. There are some missing pages.
  However, it is specifically mentioned in the report that the
  objectors have been heard. In our opinion, once the original
c report suggests that the objectors were heard, there is no point
  in urging that the appellants were not heard.

        5. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on
  behalf of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority
  (respondent No. 3) relied on the decision in Jayabheri
D Properties Private Limited & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
  & Ors. [2010 (5) SCC 590]. The observations made in para
  42, where this Court had specifically held that the contention
  raised on behalf of the appellants about hearing not afforded
  to the objectors was refuted on the ground that the objections
E filed were duly considered by the Special Dy. Collector and
  rejected by his order dated 21.7.2006. Since we have seen the
  original report in this case, we are of the opinion that not only
  was the hearing afforded, but all the objections have been
  specifically considered. The counter affidavit shows a document
F where the objectors have been invited for the hearing on a fixed
  date i.e. 17.9.1991. We are of the clear opinion that not only
  the objectors were heard, but their objections were also
  decided. This contention raised on behalf of the appellants is
  rejected.
G
       6. As regards the affidavit of the lawyer appearing on
  behalf of the appellants in land acquisition proceedings, we
  have gone through the affidavit. It is, however, completely, bereft
  of the dates and other details. We, therefore, do not find it fit
H to rely upon the same.
  BRIJ PAL BHARGAVA & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. &                195
            ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
     7. The second contention raised by Shri Lalit, learned        A
  senior counsel is that though the acquisition proceedings are
  over and the award is also passed, the possession has not
  been taken at all. The learned senior counsel pointed out, relying
  on the decisfon in Ba/want Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D.
  Bhagwan & Ors, etc. etc. (1976 (1) SCC 700] that as per the B
  majority view expressed by Bhagwati & Gupta, JJ., it is the
  physical possession which should be taken in pursuance of the
  land acquisition and not only symbolical possession or paper
  possession. The learned senior counsel also relied on the report
  to suggest that inspite of the acquisition, still the Revenue c
  entries were in favour of the appellants showing their
  possession and the cultivation by them in respect of the land.
  Shri Lalit tried to show some photographs suggesting therein
  that the wicket gate had the lock of the appellants and thus
  contended that the possession still continues with the
                                                                     0
  appellants. In fact, it is a question of fact as to whether the
  possession has been taken or not. However, the respondents
  have produced the possession receipt, where it is suggested
  that the possession was taken by the officers after going on
  the spot. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing E
  on behalf of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority
  (respondent No. 3) pointed out that it would be impossible for
. the Collector or Revenue officers to enter each bigha of land
  for taking possession thereof and, therefore, the pragmatic
  approach has to be adopted by the Court while considering as
  to whether possession has been taken or not. The learned F
  senior counsel also pointed out that the documents show that
  actual possession was taken. He also tried to point out the
  photograph suggesting that not only the possession has been
  taken, but number of other activities of construction were going
  on at the land including drawing the layout thereof and building G
  the roads therefor. The learned senior counsel relied on the ·
  reported decision in Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi
   Vs. Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT, Delhi & Ors.
  [2009 (10) SCC 501], as also in Dahyabhai Ranchhoddas
 ·Dhobi & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010 (7) SCC 705], H
    196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A where the view has been taken about the pragmatic approach
  to be adopted by the Courts in deciding as to whether the
  possession was taken or not. Seeing the report and the orders
  passed, we are thoroughly convinced that not only the
  possession was taken, but there are activities going on at the
B behest of the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. This
  is apart from the fact that this is a pure question of fact which
  has been answered by the High Court in no uncertain terms. In
  this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that even on
  this count, the appellants must fail.
c       8. We are completely satisfied with the judgment of the
    High Court and the findings therein. We confirm the same. No
    other question was raised. In result, the appeal fails and is
    dismissed, but without any costs.

    R.P.                                       Appeal dismissed.