EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL NIGAM CENTRAL STORES DIVISION, U.P.versusSURESHA NAND JUYAL@ MUSA RAM (DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 270
- Decided
- 14 March 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The acquisition was valid; the procedural steps complied with the Land Acquisition Act and the High Court’s order was set aside.
Summary
The case concerned the acquisition of land by the State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under section 4(1) was published in May 1986, objections were filed and rejected, a declaration under section 6 was issued in August 1987, and an award was made in December 1988, after which symbolic possession was taken. The respondents filed a writ petition in August 1989 challenging the acquisition on the ground that they were not given an opportunity to be heard at the enquiry, that the long delay and non‑construction rendered the purpose of acquisition moot, and that the rise in land prices made the acquisition unfair. The High Court set aside the acquisition, but on appeal the Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements of the Act had been complied with and that lapse of time, non‑implementation of the project, or increase in price are not grounds to invalidate the acquisition. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the notification and declaration, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Land Acquisition Officer’s procedure, particularly the enquiry under section 5-A, was vitiated by any error of law.
- Whether the lapse of time, non‑construction of the project, or increase in land price can invalidate a notification under section 4(1) and a declaration under section 6.
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquisition proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6(1)
Subjects
Judgment
A EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL NIGAM
CENTRAL STORES DIVISION, U.P.
v.
SURESHA NAND JUYAL@ MUSA RAM ...
(DECEASED) BY L.RS. AND ORS.
B MARCH 14, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
c Ss. 4(1), 5-A and 6(1)-Acquisition of lan~otice u/s. 4(1) published
in May 198{r-After hearing objections and publication of declaration u/s.
6(1), award passed in December 1988 and possession taken ove~Writ
petition filed on 19.8.1989 allowed by High Court on 31.8.1995-Held, the
mere fact that on account of pending litigation no constrnction was made, is
D no ground to say that the Notification u/s. 4(1) was vitiated by any error of
law-Equally increase in price of land is no ground-Order of High Court is
set aside and Notification u/s. 4( 1) and declaration u/s. ·6 stand restored.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2223 of
E 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.95 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 3354 of 1988.
R.B. Misra and K. Misra for the Appellant
F
Naresh K. Sharma for Shrish Kumar Misra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
G
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for
H short, the 'Act) was published on May 7, 1986. The notice under Section
1128
EXECUTIVEENGR.,JALNIGAM v.SURESHANANDJUYAL 1129
5-A was issued and the objections filed on December 17, 1986 were A
over-ruled after due consideration. Declaration under Section 6 was
published on August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award
came to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was
taken on the said date. The respondents filed the writ petition on
August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition by the B
impugned judgment dated August 31, 1995 in W.P. No. 3354/1988. The
question is : whether the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition
Officer was vitiated by any error manifest on the face of the record
warranting interference by the High Court? Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the respon-
dent/tenant has not been given any opportunity at the enquiry under C
Section 5-A. The land is the only source of livelihood and scheme was
temporary. In view of the long lapse of time the purpose of the acquisi-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Act no longer survived. Therefore, it does
not serve any purpose. Counter affidavit filed in the High Court by the
respondents shows that pursuant to the notice under Rule 30 of the D
Land Acquisition Rules, the respondents had filed the objections and it
is stated therein as under :
"The concerned farmers were issued notices under section 5-A
under the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 30 giving 30 days E
time for raising objections on 2.9.1986, concerned farmer Shri
Mussa alia Swesha Nanda objected which was taken on
record."
-- Obviously, after consideration of all the objections and rejection
thereof, declaration under Section 6 was published. As stated earlier, F
the award was made and symbolic possession was taken on December
17, 1988. Under the circumstances, the land stood vested in the State
- free from all encumbrances. After the proceedings had become final,
the writ petition came to be filed on May 19, 1989. The mere fact that
due to lapse to time no action was taken after the filing of the writ G
petition, does not give ground for interference. The further fact that
public purpose must have been served by constructing the quarters for
the officers elsewhere, is without any substance. The mere fact that
on account of the pending litigation, no construction was made, is no
ground to say that notification under section 4(1) was vitiated by any H
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 2 S.C.R.
A error of law; equally, increase in the prices of the lands is no ground.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court
stands set aside. The notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under
Section 6 of the Act stand restored. No costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
-
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.