REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4970      OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO.2639 OF 2007)

Mahesh Chandra Banerji      ..Appellant  Vs.

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.   ..Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4971   OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO.8019 OF 2007)

Dr. Devesh Chandra Banerji & Anr.      ..Appellants  Vs.

State of U.P. & Ors.                   ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.   1. Leave granted.

2. One, Udai Chandra Banerji had two sons, namely,  

Suresh Chandra Banerji and Ramesh Chandra Banerji.  

On  1st February,  1927,  the  two  brothers  jointly  

purchased 8848 square yards of land in Khasra Plot  

No.2305  situated  in  Kasba  Koli.  The  said  khasra  

number  was  subsequently  converted  into  Plot  

No.1002.  Although, the purchase was said to have  

been  made  jointly  by  Suresh  Chandra  Banerji  and  

Ramesh Chandra Banerji, the Sale Deed was executed  

in the name of Ramesh Chandra Banerji, who was the  

elder brother.  From the Sale Deed, it would be  

evident that a Kothi (building) was in existence  

over a part of the said land and the land adjacent  

to  the  building  was  lying  vacant.  Certain  

additional constructions were raised on the vacant  

portions  which  were  completed  in  the  year  1930.  

The said property fell within the municipal limits  

of  Aligarh.   On  1st April,  1957,  house  tax  was  

imposed for the first time and the name of Suresh  

2

Chandra Banerji was recorded in the assessment list  

of  the  house  tax  payers  in  the  records  of  the  

Municipal Board.  In 1930, Ramesh Chandra Banerji  

and  Dr.  Suresh  Chandra  Banerji  shifted  into  the  

Kothi with their families and continued to reside  

therein.  In 1941, Ramesh Chandra Banerji expired  

and after his death, a family settlement is said to  

have taken place between Ramesh Chandra Banerji’s  

heirs and Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji, as a result  

whereof  the  family  of  Ramesh  Chandra  Banerji  

shifted to Kanpur and Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji  

became the exclusive owner of the Kothi in question  

and  he  resided  therein  along  with  his  family  

members till his death on 16th August, 1989.  At the  

time of his death Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji left  

behind  him  surviving  his  sons,  Paresh  Chandra  

Banerji,  Dinesh  Chandra  Banerji,  Bhavesh  Chandra  

Banerji  and  Umesh  Chandra  Banerji,  who  died  in  

August, 1997.

3

3. Mahesh Chandra Banerji, one of the sons of late  

Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji, claims to have acquired  

knowledge that a Development Scheme known as Yojana  

No.7  had  been  taken  up  by  the  Avas  Evam  Vikas  

Parishad  in  1968  and  that  a  notification  under  

Section 28 of the Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam,  

being U.P. Act No.1 of 1968, had been issued on 5th  

October,  1968  and  a  further  notification  under  

Section 32(i) of the Adhiniyam was issued on 25th  

January, 1971, which was published in the Gazette  

on  13th February,  1971.   Under  the  said  scheme,  

along with other lands, the property of late Dr.  

Suresh Chandra Banerji in Khasra Plot No.1002, was  

also  proposed  to  be  acquired.   Objections  were  

filed  against  the  proposed  acquisition  and  in  

response  thereto  the  Respondent  No.1  decided  to  

exclude the residential house of the appellants and  

the adjoining land from the acquisition.  Despite  

the same, further representations were made by the  

appellants to allow them full frontal access from  

4

G.T. Road to their residential premises, since they  

wanted  to  establish  a  nursing  home  on  the  said  

plot.  It appears that a decision was even taken in  

that regard and Resolution No. 1/130/79 dated 16th  

January, 1979 was accepted by the Respondent No.1-

Parishad and the cost of the said land was fixed at  

not less than R.82/- per square metre.  According  

to  the  appellants,  since  the  said  

resolution/decision was not being given effect to,  

and, on the other hand, auction notice was issued  

by the Parishad on 23rd August, 1993 for sale of the  

acquired  lands  under  the  above-mentioned  scheme,  

they were compelled to file Original Suit No.307 of  

1998  before  the  Civil  Judge,  Senior  Division,  

Aligarh,  inter  alia,  praying  for  the  following  

reliefs :

“(a)  By  passing  a  decree  for  permanent  prohibitory  injunction  the  defendant  1st  set be restrained from interfering in the  peaceful  possession  of  the  plffs.   And  defendant IInd  set over the land shown by  

5

wards A B C D and red colour shown in the  map annexed with the plaint.   

(b) By  passing  a  decree  for  mandatory  injunction  the  defendant  No.1  and  5  be  directed to remove their encroachment from  the land of the plaintiff detailed at the  foot  of  the  plaint  and  to  restore  it’s  position and possession as on the date of  suit  within  the  time  specified  by  the  court  and  in  failure  to  do  the  same  be  done by agency of court.”  

4. Initially, an order of injunction was passed in  

favour of the appellants, which was subsequently  

vacated on 19th April, 2001. Simultaneously, with  

the filing of the aforesaid suit, two of the other  

sons of late Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerji, namely,  

Shri  Dinesh  Chandra  Banerji  and  Shri  Bhavesh  

Chandra Banerji, filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition  

No.18132/98  questioning  the  acquisition  

proceedings, but the same was ultimately dismissed  

on 12th May, 1999, on account of the pendency of the  

suit relating to the same acquisition.    

6

5. In  the  meantime,  on  5th May,  2000,  the  

Respondent No.6 became the successful bidder in the  

auction conducted by the Respondent No.1-Parishad  

in respect of a portion of the acquired lands which  

had earlier belonged to the appellants and a sale  

deed was also executed in his favour on 5th May,  

2000.

6. After execution of the sale deed in favour of  

the Respondent No.6, the appellants on 18.7.2001  

filed FAFO No.694/2001 against the order by which  

the  interim  order  passed  in  the  suit  had  been  

vacated.  The High Court of Allahabad granted stay  

of the order passed in the suit, but indicated that  

the right of the Respondent No.6, Shri Gyanendra  

Prashad Varshney, would not be affected by the stay  

order.  Ultimately, Civil Suit No.307 of 1998 came  

to be dismissed as withdrawn on 18th November, 2004,  

on the ground that the same had become infructuous.  

7

7.  While the above-mentioned suit was pending, Dr.  

Mahesh Chandra Banerjee made a representation to  

the Housing Commissioner (C), Uttar Pradesh Housing  

& Development Board, Lucknow, on 19th August, 2002,  

praying for release of the land belonging to the  

applicant and his family members in Plot No.1002.  

In  response  thereto,  the  District  Magistrate,  

Aligarh,  directed  the  Additional  District  

Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh, to conduct an inquiry  

and to submit a report.  In his report dated 30th  

June,  2004/02.07.2004,  the  Additional  District  

Magistrate observed that the house of the applicant  

and the land attached to it had been exempted from  

acquisition.  It was also specifically indicated  

that 8848 square yards of the land of the applicant  

comprised  in  the  said  plot  was  free  from  

acquisition.  It  was  further  indicated  that  the  

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Agra, had clearly  

mentioned that only the lands owned by one Shivdan  

Singh had been acquired and that no other land out  

8

of  the  total  area  comprising  Plot  No.1002  had  

either  been  acquired  or  had  compensation  been  

determined or had possession been taken thereof.  

It was also indicated that despite the above, the  

officials  of  the  Housing  Development  Board,  

Aligarh, were selling Dr. Banerji’s land illegally.

8. While, on the one hand, possession of the lands  

sold in auction was not being handed over to the  

auction purchasers, Shri Sanjai Singh and others,  

on the other hand, the report of the Additional  

District Magistrate was also not being given proper  

consideration for release of the lands which the  

Respondent  No.1-Parishad  had  purportedly  taken  

possession  of  without  the  same  having  been  

acquired.   Consequently,  Sanjai  Singh  and  two  

others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54160 of  

2005 before the Allahabad High Court claiming that  

they were entitled to be given the possession of  

the  land  in  respect  of  which  they  were  the  

9

successful bidders in the auction conducted by the  

Parishad.  They also questioned the demand made by  

the Respondent No.1-Parishad by its letter dated  

30th April,  2005,  asking  for  interest  along  with  

penalty and stamp fee before physical possession of  

the  said  lands  could  be  made  over  to  them.  

Aggrieved by such demand and also by the fact that  

possession of the land in respect of which they  

were the successful bidders was not being made over  

to them, the said writ petitioners, Sanjai Singh  

and others, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the  

impugned  demand  dated  30th April,  2005,  made  on  

behalf of the Respondent No.1-Parishad and also for  

a direction upon the said respondent to immediately  

deliver  possession  of  Plot  No.C-2/A,  G.T.  Road,  

Yojana, Aligarh, within a time period to be fixed  

by the court, after accepting the original amount  

as  determined  by  allotment  order  dated  17th May,  

2000 and also to execute the sale deed in their  

favour.  

10

9. On the other hand, Dr. Dinesh Chandra Banerji  

and Mahesh Chandra Banerjee filed a separate Writ  

Petition No.43552/2004 against the Respondent-Avas  

Evam Vikas Parishad and the auction purchasers for  

a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding  

the  Respondent-State  and  the  Avas  Evam  Vikas  

Parishad to give effect to the inquiry report dated  

2nd July, 2004, submitted by the Additional District  

Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh.

10. The Writ Petition filed by Sanjai Singh and  

others came to be disposed of by the Division Bench  

of the Allahabad High Court on 6th October, 2005,  

inter alia, with a direction that in the event the  

writ petitioners deposited the entire outstanding  

dues, excluding the penal interest, within a period  

of  four  weeks  from  the  date  of  the  order,  the  

respondents would hand over the possession of the  

property in dispute to them within a period of two  

weeks thereafter.  The Respondent No.1-Parishad was  

11

also requested to decide the representation of the  

petitioners with regard to the penal interest by a  

speaking and reasoned order within six weeks from  

the  date  of  filing  of  a  certified  copy  of  the  

order.  It  was  also  indicated  that  in  case  the  

petitioners  had  not  filed  their  representation  

before the appropriate authority, they could do so  

within a week from the date of the order before the  

Housing  Commissioner,  U.P.  Avas  Evam  Vikas  

Parishad, Lucknow, and the same would be dealt with  

in accordance with law.   

11. After the said order was passed, Dr. Mahesh  

Chandra  Banerji  filed  Civil  Misc.  Recall  

Application No.81128/2006 praying for recall of the  

aforesaid judgment and order on the ground that the  

same had been obtained by concealing material facts  

and that the order adversely affected the applicant  

who was not even impleaded as respondent in the  

writ petition, though, he was a necessary party.  

12

The said application was dismissed on 12th December,  

2006, on the ground that the process of the court  

was  being  misused  by  denying  possession  of  the  

lands  which  had  been  allotted  in  favour  of  the  

auction  purchasers  and  that  attempts  were  being  

made to misguide the court in order to hold on to  

the  possession  which  had  already  vested  in  the  

State under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894.  Consequently, by an order of 12th December,  

2006,  Writ  Petition  No.43552  of  2004,  which  had  

been filed by the petitioners in SLP(C)No.8019 of  

2007, was dismissed on the ground that the case was  

clearly  covered  by  the  judgment  passed  in  the  

Recall Application filed by Mahesh Chandra Banerji  

in Writ Petition No.54160 of 2005 filed by Sanjai  

Singh and others.

12. SLP(C) No.2639 of 2007 has been filed by Dr.  

Mahesh Chandra Banerji against the order dated 12th  

December, 2006, whereby his application for recall  

13

of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.54160  

of 2005 was rejected.  SLP(C) No.8019 of 2007 has  

been filed by Dr. Devesh Chandra Banerji and Mahesh  

Chandra Banerji against the final order dated 12th  

December, 2006, whereby Writ Petition No.43552 of  

2004 was rejected.    

13. The main contention of Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned  

Senior Advocate, who appeared for the appellants in  

both the Civil Appeals, was that only a part and  

not the whole of Plot No.1002, which, according to  

him,  measured  15  bighas  and  10  biswa  had  been  

acquired for the scheme (Yojana No.7) undertaken by  

the Respondent-Parishad. It was urged that out of  

the  total  area  comprising  the  aforesaid  plot,  

possession had been taken only of 6 bighas and 17  

biswa,  which  belonged  to  one  Shivdan  Singh,  in  

whose  name  compensation  had  been  awarded  by  the  

Collector.  In fact, it was Mr. Dutta’s stand that  

14

no part of the appellants’ land in Plot No.1002 had  

been acquired for the aforesaid scheme.

14. Mr.  Dutta  relied  heavily  on  the  report  

submitted  by  the  Additional  District  Magistrate  

(V.R.), Aligarh, dated 30th June, 2004/02.07.2004,  

in regard to the inquiry conducted by him on the  

representation  made  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  

wherein reference had been made to the report of  

the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer,  Agra,  

indicating that out of Plot No.1002 only the land  

owned by one Shivdan Singh had been acquired and  

that any other land had neither been acquired nor  

had compensation been determined nor had possession  

been taken.  On the other hand, the actions of the  

officials  of  the  Housing  Development  Board,  

Aligarh, were deprecated.  Mr. Dutta pointed out  

that a categorical finding had been arrived at by  

the Additional District Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh,  

that the officials of the Housing Development Board  

15

had allotted Dr. Banerji’s land illegally without  

acquiring the same and without making payment of  

compensation.   Mr.  Dutta  submitted  that  having  

taken note of the high-handed and arbitrary action  

of the officials of the Housing Development Board,  

the Additional District Magistrate had recommended  

that the equivalent extent of land of Dr. Banerji,  

which  had  been  arbitrarily  allotted  to  others,  

should be made available to Dr. Banerji’s family.

15. Mr.  Dutta  further  submitted  that  although  

initially  there  was  a  proposal  to  acquire  the  

entire land comprising Plot No.1002, subsequently  

on representations being made, the said proposal  

was dropped and, in fact, a resolution was adopted  

by the Respondent-Parishad to exclude the building  

and land of the Banerjis from the scope and ambit  

of  the  acquisition  proceedings.   Mr.  Dutta  

submitted that the controversy began when some of  

the lands owned by the appellants in the plot in  

16

question were forcibly occupied and sold, allegedly  

in pursuance of the above-mentioned Yojana No.7.  

Mr. Dutta submitted that as will be evident from  

the  proceedings  conducted  by  the  Collector  in  

regard to the acquisition of Plot No.1002, there is  

no mention whatsoever of the land of the Banerji  

family having been acquired or compensation having  

been assessed therefor.  It was urged that this  

would clearly establish that no part of the lands  

under the occupation of the Banerji family in the  

plot in question had been acquired for the above-

mentioned Scheme. Mr. Dutta submitted that although  

an  attempt  has  been  made  on  behalf  of  the  

Respondent-Parishad to muddy the waters by claiming  

that the lands of the Banerji family had also been  

included in the 6.17 bighas in respect of which  

compensation  had  been  awarded,  there  was  no  

evidence of such assertion since the proceedings  

were confined only to the lands belonging to the  

property of Shivdan Singh.  It was also pointed out  

17

that  no  compensation  had  either  been  awarded  or  

paid  to  the  members  of  the  Banerji  family  and  

hence, the case made out on behalf of the Parishad  

that the land belonging to the Banerji family in  

Plot No.1002 had also been acquired, has no basis  

whatsoever.

16. Mr. Dutta urged that in view of the detailed  

inquiry  conducted  by  the  Additional  District  

Magistrate  (V.R.),  Aligarh,  and  the  report  

submitted by him on the basis thereof, the impugned  

order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad  

High  Court  on  the  Recall  Application  filed  on  

behalf of the appellants herein, was liable to be  

set aside and the matter was liable to be remanded  

to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh  

consideration.

17. Mr.  Dinesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel,  

appearing  for  the  Respondent-Parishad  and  its  

Authorities, referred to the reliefs prayed for by  

18

Dr. Mahesh Chandra Banerji and Dr. Devesh Chandra  

Banerji in Original Suit No.307 of 1998 which was  

ultimately dismissed as infructuous.  Mr. Dwivedi  

submitted  that  the  suit  was  for  injunction  

simplicitor  to  restrain  the  Parishad  from  

interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs  

in the lands forming the subject matter of the suit  

and also for mandatory injunction on the Defendant  

Nos.1 and 5 to remove encroachments from the said  

lands and to restore its position and possession as  

on the date of the suit.  It was submitted that the  

plaintiffs chose to abandon the suit on account of  

the writ petition which had been separately filed  

in  respect  of  the  same  land,  inter  alia,  for  

implementation  of  the  report  of  the  Additional  

District Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh, dated 2nd July,  

2004,  submitted  to  the  District  Magistrate,  

Aligarh.  Mr. Dwivedi submitted that the aforesaid  

report  did  not  give  an  accurate  picture  of  the  

acquisition proceedings since the lands measuring  

19

6.17 bighas in respect of which possession had been  

taken  by  the  Parishad,  was  not  confined  to  the  

lands  of  Shivdan  Singh  alone,  but  also  included  

some  of  the  lands  comprising  the  lands  of  the  

Banerji family as well. Mr. Dwivedi referred to the  

status of the land comprised in Plot No.1002 shown  

in the letter addressed by the Executive Engineer,  

U.P. Housing and Development Board on 9th February,  

2004 to the District Magistrate, Aligarh.  

18. From  the  contents  of  the  said  letter,  Mr.  

Dwivedi pointed out that out of the total lands  

comprising Plot No.1002, the land comprising the  

Pisawa  House  was  excluded  from  the  acquisition  

along with Dr. Mahesh Banerji’s Kothi and the open  

land towards North-32 ft., towards South-32 ft.,  

towards  East-12  ft.  and  towards  West-52  ft.  

measuring 1-1-10 bighas and a further 0-14-2 bighas  

on which Smt. Angoori Devi’s Kothi was situated.  

Mr.  Dwivedi  submitted  that  according  to  the  

20

aforesaid facts, the stand taken on behalf of the  

appellants  on  the  basis  of  the  report  of  the  

Additional  District  Magistrate  (V.R.),  Aligarh,  

that  no  portion  of  the  lands  belonging  to  the  

Banerji family had been acquired, was wrong and not  

supported  by  the  record.   In  fact,  Mr.  Dwivedi  

pointed out that while assessing compensation for  

the  6.17  bighas  of  land  in  respect  whereof  

possession had been taken, the Collector was alive  

to the fact that the entire lands did not belong to  

Shivdan Singh alone, as alleged, and the same would  

be evident from the Award, wherein compensation had  

been assessed in favour of Shivdan Singh, etc.  It  was submitted that apart from Shivdan Singh, the  

lands of the Banerji family had also been included  

in the acquisition.

19. The submissions made on behalf of the Parishad  

were also adopted by Mr. R.K. Dash, learned Senior  

Advocate  for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  The  

21

categorical stand taken by learned counsel was that  

the  views  expressed  by  the  Additional  District  

Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh, were contrary to the  

records, as mentioned by the Executive Engineer,  

U.P. Housing and Development Board in his letter  

dated 9th February, 2004, addressed to the District  

Magistrate, Aligarh.   

20. Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Senior Advocate,  

who  appeared  for  Respondent  Nos.4  to  6,  firstly  

referred to the notice published by the Respondent-

Parishad under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam  

Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965, wherein the area to  

be comprised in the G.T. Road Bhoomi Vikas Yojana  

was specified and objections were invited within 30  

days from the date on which the notice was first  

published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, i.e., 5th  

October, 1968.  Mr. Rao submitted that no objection  

had been filed on behalf of the Banerjis within the  

specified time and the representation on the basis  

22

of  which  the  inquiry  was  conducted  by  the  

Additional District Magistrate (V.R.), Aligarh, was  

made  as  late  as  on  19th August,  2002.  It  was  

submitted that in the meantime, auction had been  

conducted on 30th March, 2000 and allotment letter  

had also been issued in favour of the successful  

bidders by the Housing Board on 17th May, 2000 and  

possession  was  also  given  to  the  three  auction  

purchasers on 5th April, 2006.  Mr. Rao submitted  

that  the  Respondent  Nos.4  to  6  were,  therefore,  

bona fide purchasers for value without notice and  

the allotment made in their favour, could not be  

disturbed.   

21. From  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  

respective parties and the materials on record, it  

will  be  apparent  that  the  dispute  in  this  case  

centers around the question as to whether barring  

1-1-10 bighas of the lands comprising a part of the  

property belonging to the Banerji family, which had  

23

been excluded from the acquisition, the remaining  

portion had also been acquired for the purpose of  

Yojana No.7 undertaken by the Respondent-Parishad.  

From the calculations as indicated in the report of  

the  Executive  Engineer,  U.P.  Housing  Development  

Board, only 1-1-10 bighas of land belonging to the  

Banerji family had been excluded from the scope of  

the acquisition and as far as remaining lands are  

concerned,  the  same  either  fall  within  the  6.17  

bighas possession whereof had already been taken,  

or the same fell outside the said area which did  

not form part of the lands excluded from the ambit  

of the acquisition.  In either case, the Banerjis  

have  to  be  compensated  for  the  said  lands  in  

respect  whereof,  according  to  the  Banerjis,  no  

compensation had either been assessed or awarded.  

The said conundrum still remains to be solved.  No  

positive finding has at all been arrived at in this  

regard by the acquiring authorities, nor even by  

the Collector while making his Award.  There is,  

24

therefore,  some  justification  in  Mr.  Dutta’s  

submissions  that  if  the  lands  of  the  Banerji  

family,  apart  from  the  lands  which  had  been  

excluded from the acquisition, had actually been  

acquired for the purpose of Yojana No.7, the same  

had  to  be  reflected  in  the  proceedings  for  

acquisition  of  the  lands  and,  accordingly,  

compensation was required to be paid to the Banerji  

family in respect thereof. The general submission  

made on behalf of the Parishad and the State that  

it was for the Banerjis to prove their title to the  

alleged lands comprising 6.17 bighas and to ask for  

compensation therefor, does not stand scrutiny in  

view of the fact that identity of the lands covered  

within the said 6.17 bighas has not been properly  

established.  

22. The  writ  court  is  not  ideally  situated  to  

decide such a disputed question of fact.  Although,  

a description of the lands of the Banerji family  

25

which  had  been  acquired,  has  been  given  in  the  

letter  written  by  the  Executive  Engineer,  U.P.  

Housing  Development  Board  to  the  District  

Magistrate on 9th February, 2004, the same has to be  

considered along with the decision which had been  

taken to allow the Banerji family to retain the  

lands  adjacent  to  their  Kothi  upto  G.T.  Road.  

There appears to be a communication gap between the  

different authorities of the State Government as  

also the Parishad relating to these lands.  If a  

resolution  had  been  taken  to  allow  the  Banerji  

family  to  retain  the  above-mentioned  lands  

contiguous to G.T. Road, then the specifications  

given  in  the  letter  of  the  Executive  Engineer  

appear to be incorrect.  Whatever be the dispute, a  

citizen cannot be deprived of his property except  

in  accordance  with  the  procedure  established  by  

law.  If barring 1-1-10 bighas of land which had  

been excluded from the ambit of the acquisition,  

the other lands of the Banerji family have actually  

26

been acquired and possession thereof been taken,  

the extent of the lands so acquired will have to be  

established and compensation in respect thereof has  

to be paid to the Banerji family.  That does not  

appear  to  have  been  done  in  this  case,  thereby  

causing prejudice to the appellants.  On the other  

hand, if the excess lands belonging to the Banerji  

family had been included within the 6.17 bighas of  

land  in  respect  whereof  possession  had  actually  

been taken, the State and the acquiring body have  

to  identify  the  said  lands  for  the  purposes  of  

assessing compensation.

23. All the above questions can either be decided  

in a properly instituted suit or by the Collector  

on  a  proper  inquiry  being  conducted.   We  are,  

therefore,  of  the  view  that  in  order  to  put  a  

quietus  to  the  dispute,  the  District  Magistrate  

should  conduct  a  fresh  inquiry  in  order  to  

determine the extent of the lands of the Banerji  

27

family which had been included in the acquisition  

proceedings  for  the  purpose  of  Yojana  No.7  

undertaken by the Parishad upon giving the affected  

parties an opportunity of placing their respective  

cases.

24. The District Magistrate, Aligarh is, therefore,  

directed  to  conduct  an  enquiry  in  order  to  

determine  the  extent  of  land  belonging  to  the  

Banerji family which is said to have been acquired  

for the purposes of the scheme covered by Yojana  

No.7 undertaken by the Respondent No.1-Parishad and  

to  also  determine  as  to  whether  the  same  was  

included  in  the  6.17  bighas  of  land  possession  

whereof had been taken earlier.  In the event the  

lands have not been included within the ambit of  

the acquisition proceedings, as indicated by the  

Additional  District  Magistrate  (V.R.),  Aligarh,  

then, in such an event, the compensation for the  

same is to be assessed and Award is to be made in  

28

respect  thereof,  in  accordance  with  law.  On  the  

other hand, if the said lands have been included  

within  the  6.17  bighas  in  respect  of  which  

compensation had already been awarded, the District  

Magistrate shall, after identification of the lands  

of  the  appellants,  apportion  the  compensation  

payable to them and make an Award accordingly.

25. As indicated hereinbefore, in conducting such  

an inquiry, the appellants as also the authorities  

of  the  Respondent  No.1-Parishad  should  be  given  

proper  opportunity  of  placing  their  respective  

cases. Since the acquisition relates back to the  

year  1968/1971,  such  investigation  and  enquiry  

must, however, be completed within six months from  

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.   

26. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed to the  

aforesaid  extent, but  without  any  order  as  to  

29

costs.  All connected applications shall also stand  

disposed of by this order.

________________J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 7th July, 2010.     

30