NDLI: Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1894- ss.4(1) Land Acquisition Act 6(1) 11A 17(1) and 17(4)
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Land Acquisition Act, 1894- ss.4(1), 6(1), 11A, 17(1) and 17(4):Writ petition filed by respondent no.1 challenging acquisition of land by the State Government on the ground that the award was not passed within two years from the date of last publication of the declaration issued under s.6(1) - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: In matters involving challenge to the acquisition of land for public purpose, delay in filing the writ petition should be viewed seriously and relief denied to the petitioner if he fails to offer plausible explanation for the delay - Delay of even few years would be fatal to the cause of the petitioner, if the acquired land has been partly E or wholly utilised for the public purpose - On facts, the High Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long time gap of 9 years between the issue of declaration under s. 6(1) and filing of the writ petition and decline relief to respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was guilty of /aches because the acquired land had been utilized for implementing a residential scheme and third party rights had been created - The unexplained delay of about six years between the passing of award and filing of writ petition was also sufficient for refusing to entertain the prayer made in the writ petition - Also the action of the concerned State authorities to go to the spot and prepare panchnama showing delivery of possession was sufficient for recording a finding that actual possession of the entire acquired land had been taken and handed over to the development authority concerned i.e. BDA - Once it is held that possession of the acquired land was handed over to the BOA, the view taken by the High Court that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-compliance of s. 11 A cannot be sustained.Mode of taking possession of the acquired land - Principles culled out from earlier judgements - Held: No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what act would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land - If the acquired land is vacant, the act of the concerned State authority to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession - If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession - Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama - Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken - If the acquisition is of a large tract of land, it may not be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take physical possession of each and every parcel of the land and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by preparing appropriate document in the presence of independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such document - If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total compensation is deposited in terms of s. 17(3A) and substantial portion of the acquired land has been utilised in furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the Court may reasonably presume thatpossession of the acquired )and has been taken.Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Effect of delay in filing writ petition - Discussed - Held: Though no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution, the High Court ought not to entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallized rights of the parties - If the writ petition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing a civil suit for similar cause, the High Court will treat the delay unreasonable and decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner on merits.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 331
Petitioner	Banda Development Authority, Banda
Respondent	Moti Lal Agarwal And Others
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 435
Judgement Date	2011-04-26
Case Number	3604

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Greater Nolda Ind. Dev. Authority Vs. Savjtri Mohan (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another

State of U.p. Etc. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors.

Meerut Development Authority Etc. Vs. Satbir Singh and Ors. Etc.

Raja Anand Brahma Shah Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Union of India and Another Vs. Mohiuddin Masood and Others

Manohar Lal (d) By Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (d) By Lrs. & Ors.

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Omvir Singh & Ors.

Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others

Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Greater Nolda Ind. Dev. Authority Vs. Savjtri Mohan (dead) Through Lrs. & Ors.

Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another

State of U.p. Etc. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors.

Meerut Development Authority Etc. Vs. Satbir Singh and Ors. Etc.

Raja Anand Brahma Shah Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

Union of India and Another Vs. Mohiuddin Masood and Others

Manohar Lal (d) By Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (d) By Lrs. & Ors.

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Omvir Singh & Ors.

Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and Others