Page 1 of 8  

         REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5820 OF 2019  (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 10151 OF 2014)  

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &  ANR.  

 .....APPELLANT(S)  

VERSUS  

GOPAL DAS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRs &  ORS.  

 .....RESPONDENT(S)  

J U D G M E N T    

HEMANT GUPTA, J.  

  Leave granted.  

2) The appellant-Lucknow Development Authority1 is aggrieved  

against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of  

Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on January 15, 2014  

whereby the order dated July 29, 2011 passed by LDA was  

quashed.  The appellants were also made liable to pay costs of  

Rs.1,00,000/- with the direction to recover the costs from the  

authorities who have been instrumental in passing the impugned  

order.  

                                                 1  for short, ‘LDA’

 Page 2 of 8  

3) The facts leading to the present appeal are that LDA acquired total  

land measuring 168.592 hectares (666 Bigha, 7 Biswa, 8 Biswansi,  

8 Kachwansi) vide notification dated November 12, 1981 under  

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of  

Sitapur Road City Extension Scheme for residential purposes.   

Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 was issued on  

December 3, 1981 and the award was published on January 15,  

1986.   

4) The land of the respondents measuring 1.200 hectares forming  

part of land acquired was sought to be released from acquisition  

from the State Government under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh  

Urban Planning and Development Act, 19732.  The land was  

released from acquisition on May 23, 2011 whereby an order of  

restoration of land in question of Khasra Nos. 416 and 417 was  

passed in favour of the respondents along with an order of  

payment of development fee in terms of Section 17 of the Act.   

The respondents were directed to deposit an amount of  

Rs.1,57,22,056/- within one week being Rs.1,38,780/- as the cost  

of acquisition and Rs.1,55,83,276/- as the amount of development  

fee vide separate letter dated July 29, 2011.  It is the said order  

which has been set aside by the High Court vide order impugned in  

the present appeal.  The High Court held as under:  

                                                 2  for short, ‘Act’

 Page 3 of 8  

“33. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of word,  

"development", it shall be obligatory on the part of the  

development authorities like LDA in the present case, to  

make some development in accordance to statutory  

mandate over the land and its vicinity to make it entitle to  

impose development charges in terms of proviso of sub-

section (1) of Section 17 of the Act. Further, the  

development charges co-relate with the expenditure  

incurred with regard to development activities. The  

development activities should be in the vicinity where  

citizens' plots, flats or houses exist. In the present case,  

from the lay out plan and material on record, it appears  

that no development activities have been done towards  

west side of the railway line. Whatever development has  

been done, it seems to have been done in the Sector-A of  

the Scheme towards eastern side of railway line. Neither  

any material has been brought on record nor there is any  

pleading on record that electricity, sewer line, road  

constructed by the LDA is utilized by the petitioner. There is  

no material on record which may prove that electricity  

connection has also been provided to the petitioner's  

premises from the infrastructure of the LDA. National  

Highway No.24 is the old road connecting Lucknow and  

Sitapur and it does not seem to be part of the development  

project of the LDA.   

34. …Nothing has been brought on record to establish the  

expenditure incurred on development work done over the  

land in dispute or in its close vicinity in terms of Section 8  

and 9 of the Act from which the petitioner may be  

benefited. In absence of any benefit provided to the  

petitioner by the development work done by the  

development authority or the Lucknow Development  

Authority as the case may be, the petitioner or a citizen  

may not be subjected to payment of development charges.”  

5) Such development charges at the time of restoration are  

contemplated in terms of proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act, which  

reads as under:  

“17.  Compulsory acquisition of land.-(1) If in  

the opinion of the State Government, any land is  

required for the purpose of development, or for any

 Page 4 of 8  

other purpose, under this Act, the State Government  

may acquire such land under the Provisions of  

the Land Acquisition Act,1894:  

Provided that any person, from whom any land is so  

acquired, may after the expiration of a period of five  

years room the date of such acquisition apply to the  

State Government for restoration of that land to him  

on the ground that the land has not been utilised  

within the period for the purpose, for which it was  

acquired and if the State Government is satisfied to  

that effect it shall order restoration of the land to him  

on re-payment of the charges which were incurred in  

connection with the acquisition together with interest  

at the rate of twelve per cent per annum and such  

development charges, if any, as may have been  

incurred after acquisition.  

(2) Where any land has been acquired by the State  

Government, that Government may, after it has taken  

possession of the land transfer the land to the  

Authority or any local authority for the purpose for  

which the land has been acquired on payment by  

Authority or the local Authority of the compensation  

awarded under that Act and of the charges incurred by  

the Government in connection with the acquisition.”  

6) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land in  

question is 138575.25 sq. feet i.e. 12878.741 sq. meters and is  

situated between railway line of Aishbagh-Mailani Section and  

National Highway No. 24.  Since the land in question is part of a  

planned scheme of LDA, all necessary external infrastructural  

developments like construction of road, electricity, water and sewer  

lines have been made available in the area.  It is also pointed out  

that development under the Act means development of the entire  

area as a whole and not only the land of the one or two  

landowners.  The land in question is part of Master Plan and the

 Page 5 of 8  

development of the area cannot be seen in piecemeal.  In the  

impugned order before the High Court, the competent authority  

has recorded the following facts:  

“11.  …Under the scheme of Sitapur City Extension Scheme  

in question, the land admeasuring 168.529 hect. was  

acquired in the year 1981.  This land is completely  

developed land and under this land approx.. 97.1% of the  

land is planned land.  All the public facilities like Roads,  

Electricity, Water, Sewer etc. has been made available over  

this land by the authority.  In between Railway Line and  

National Highways there is total 34-1-0-0 bigha land which  

is covered with road (National Highway), hence it comes  

within the category of developed land.  Since before, the  

facilities of roads, electricity and water are available here.   

The total acquired land except 19-6-0-0 bigha has been  

allotted.  However, the land in question is reserved for  

future development, and any decision in this regard are not  

available in the record.  The land in question comes under  

the scheme of Sitapur City Extension Scheme.  Any zonal  

Plan of land situated in between Railway Line and National  

Highway is not approved, but by clubbing this area, the  

“Road Network Plan” of complete scheme in which all the  

sectors have been shown is approved.  The aforesaid plan  

exists at present and there are no necessity to renew the  

lay-out plan of Schemes of the Authority.    

12.  …In accordance to Report of the Authority, approx. 34  

Bigha land between National Highway Lucknow Sitapur  

Road and Railway Line has been acquired which is an  

Pattinuma, and out of which 15 Bigha land has been  

allotted and approx. 19 Bigha land is remain as it is.  The  

land of the petitioner Shri Gopal Das is included in this 19  

Bigha land and out of this aforesaid 19 Bigha land, over the  

land of 12 Bigha there are personal buildings etc. are  

existed being the encroachment.  In this way when the land  

of the petitioner has not been planned and has not been  

allotted and in part of the land his paint business is  

running, then it does not reveal justified in any manner  

that the land has been used by the Lucknow Development  

Authority.  Because the land in question of petitioner has  

been acquired by the Lucknow Development Authority for  

the use of residential provisions, but the same has not  

been used for the said provisions.  Therefore on the basis

 Page 6 of 8  

of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the balance of  

convenience is revealed in favour of the petitioner.   

Therefore, in such circumstances, the transfer of land in  

question is to be considered in favour of petitioner under  

Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and  

Development Act, 1973.”  

7) The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land in  

question is situated between railway line and National Highway,  

which is measuring 34 Bighas, out of which 15 Bighas has been  

allotted and remaining 19 Bighas of land including 12 Bighas of the  

respondents has not been allotted.  It is the said averment made in  

Para 15 which was taken into consideration by the High Court and  

returned a finding that the development charges could not be  

claimed as there is no development work on the land of the  

respondents.  It is the said finding which is sought to be supported  

by Mr. V.K. Garg, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

respondents.    

8) Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that in respect of  

some other land, part of the same acquisition has been released in  

terms of Section 24 of the Fair Compensation and Transparency in  

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.   

Therefore, the respondents cannot be treated in a discriminatory  

manner.  

9) We do not find that the findings recorded by the High Court are  

sustainable in law.  As per the averments made in the counter

 Page 7 of 8  

affidavit filed before the High Court and also in the impugned  

order, it is stated that 97.1% of the total land acquired is planned  

land.  Small portion of 19 Bighas including the land of the  

respondents has not been planned for the reason that there were  

buildings on such area.  Therefore, when the appellants state that  

the land of the respondents has not been planned or allotted is in  

the context that the area has not been plotted.  It does not mean  

that the appellants have not carried out any development on the  

land in question.  It is not some part of the land acquired is  

required to be taken into consideration, to find out as to whether  

any development has been carried out in the land acquired.  The  

findings of the High Court that the land in question or the vicinity  

has not been developed is not the correct reading of the impugned  

order passed as it has been clearly stated that 97.1% of the land  

acquired has been developed.  The development is to be examined  

in respect of the land acquired.  It is categorical stand of the  

appellants that they have constructed road, provided electricity,  

water and laid sewer lines and, therefore, the respondents cannot  

avoid payment of development charges while seeking restoration  

of land in terms of Section 17 of the Act.  

10) In view thereof, we find that the judgment passed by the High  

Court setting aside the claim of development charges is not  

sustainable.  Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the said  

finding is set aside.  

 Page 8 of 8  

11) We find that the order quantifying the development charges of  

Rs.1,57,22,056/- was raised without giving any opportunity of  

hearing to the respondents.  Consequently, the demand  

letter/order dated July 29, 2011 is set aside with liberty to the  

appellants to communicate the amount incurred on acquisition and  

development charges in accordance with law.  It shall be open to  

the respondents to seek remedy, if any, under the Right to Fair  

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation  

and Resettlement Act, 2013 in accordance with law.    

 .............................................J.  

(L. NAGESWARA RAO)    

.............................................J.  (HEMANT GUPTA)  

 NEW DELHI;  

JULY 24, 2019.