JAYAMMA & ORS.versusTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN AND ORS.

                     [2013] 3 S.C.R. 245


                      JAYAMMA & ORS.                                  A
                                 v
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN
                     AND ORS.
       (Civil Appeal Nos. 4345-4429 of 2013)
                                                                      B
                         MAY 6, 2013.
        [G.S. SINGHVI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Constitution of India, 1950:
                                                                      c
      Arts. 226 and 142 - Writ petition seeking direction to
Land Acquisition Collector to complete acquisition
proceedings - Held: Whether to acquire a particular property
or not is for the Government to decide - Court cannot compel
Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards in respect of land
                                                                      0
acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed - In the
instant case, since owners have suffered damages, they are
entitled to compensation - In order to do complete justice, it
is ordered that each of the petitioners shall be paid a lump
sum amount of Re. 1 lakh towards damages for the hardships            E
they have undergone on account of seepage resulting in
dampness and cracks to their residential buildings - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6, 48 and 36.
      Art. 226 - Writ petition seeking direction to Land
Acquisition Collector to act in terms of letter issued by             F
Secretary to Government - Held: Is wholly misconceived -
If a subordinate authority in Government does not act in terms
of direction or instruction issued by superior authority, it is not
for court to order compliance, if it is not otherwise governed
by a statutory procedure.                                             G
    Agricultural land of the appellants had been acquired
for an irrigation canal. Their houses came within the
seepage affected area of the canal. Proceedings to
acquire the property were initiated, but were not
                               245                                    H
   246       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [201~] .3 S.C.R.


A completed. The High Court in writ petitions directed the
  Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards. In writ
  appeals the stand of the State authorities was that the
  hardship of the writ petitioners was being resolved and
  for that purpose acquisition was not necessary. The
B Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeals
  accordingly.

         Dismissing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Whether to acquire a particular property
C or not is for the Government to decide. It is not within the
  jurisdiction of the court to compel the Government to
  acquire any property, otherwise than as per the Land
  Acquisition Act. Court cannot compel the Land
  Acquisition Collector to pass awards in respect of the
D land acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed.
  In the instant case, the declaration u/s 6 had already
  lapsed by the time the writ petitioners approached the
  High Court. This crucial factual position has not been
  taken note of by the High Court. [para 8-9) [250-F-H; 251-
E F-G]
      1.2. Besides, under the scheme of the Land
  Acquisition Act, the Government is at liberty to withdraw
  from the acquisition of any land of which possession has
F not been taken, at any stage prior to the passing of the
  award. In case the owner, in consequence of such
  withdrawal, has suffered any damages, he is entitled to
  compensation in that regard u/s 48 of the Act. In the case
  on hand, there is no question of any such Notification on
  withdrawal since the proceedings had already lapsed.
G Admittedly, no possession had been taken. Therefore, s.
  36 does not apply. [para 8-9) [250-G-H; 251-A-F]
      1.3. Even otherwise, the writ petition was wholly
  misconceived. The prayer is for direction to the Land
H Acquisition Collector to act in terms of letter issued to
  JAYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,                  247
           HASSAN DIST., HASSAN
him by the Secretary to the Government. If a subordinate         A
authority in the Government does not act in terms of the
direction or instruction issued by the superior authority,
it is not for the Court to compel that subordinate authority
to comply with such instruction or direction, if it is not
otherwise governed by a statutory procedure. [para 1OJ           B
[252-C.;E]
     1.4. However, the fact remains that the residential
houses of the appellants are in the seepage affected area
coming under the Canal. It has to be noted that the
agricultural land of the petitioners had already been C
acquired and what remained was only the residential
part. Petitioners had the grievance that on account of the
seepage, there was dampness resulting also in cracks on
the building. In view of the miseries suffered by these
poor persons, it will not be just and fair to relegate them D
to workout their remedies before civil court for damages,
at this distance of time. Therefore, in the interests of
justice and in order to do complete justice, it is ordered
that each of the appellants shall be paid a lump sum
amount of Re.1 lakh. However, it is made clear that the E
respondents are at liberty, if so required or warranted in
public interest, to acquire the said properties. [para 11]
[252-F-H; 253-A-C]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4345-4429 of 2013.                                               F
    · From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2011 of the
Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ
Appeal No. 16390 of 2011 & Writ Appeal Nos. 16601-684 of
2011.
                                                                 G
    Shantha Kumar Mahale for the Appellants.
    V.N. Raghupathy, Naveen R. Nath, Lalit Mohini Bhat,
Darpan K.M., for the Respondents.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   H
    248           SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2013) 3 S.C.R.


A         KURIAN, J.1. Leave granted.

        2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the
  Constitution of India, can compel the State to complete the
  acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land
  Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'), is one of the short questions
8
  arising for consideration in these cases. Another short question
  is - Whether writ can be issued compelling the Land
  Acquisition Collector/Officer to implement the instruction issued
  to him by the Government otherwise than under the procedure
  under the Act?
c
    SHORT FACTS
       3. The writ petitioners/appellants herein having their
   property in Mukundur village, Hassan Taluk in Karnataka State
.D approached the High Court for following directions:

          "Issue Writ of Mandamus directing Deputy Commissioner
          and Land Acquisition Officer to pass the award as per the
          directions of the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
          Government of Karnataka and the decision of State
E         Government dated 19.11.2009."

        4. The letter dated 19.11.2009 from the Principal Secretary
    to Government, Revenue Department, addressed to the Deputy
    Commissioner, Hasan District, reads as under:
F
          "Sir,

          Sub:- Framing award in respect of Mukundooru,
          Gaddebindenahalli and Chikkagondanahalli villages which
          are acquired as seepage affected villages at Hassan
G         District - Reg.
          Ref:- Your Letter No. BhuSwaSa-150:2008-09 dated
          11.09.2009.

                  With regard to the above subject, your attention is
H
  JAYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,                    249
      HASSAN DIST., HASSAN [KURIAN, J.]
    attracted towards your letter. As it is already decided in      A
    the order No. RD 120 REH 1992 dated 15.04.1999 to shift
    these villages with regard to seepage, due to Hemavathi
    Irrigation canal project,. it was already informed in the
    earlier letter dated 16.03.1999 that, there is no necessity
    to submit the same afresh before high level committee           B
    presided by the Regional Commissioner and further to
    frame award in respect of these villages.

           In furtherance, it is clearly ordered by the Hon'ble
    Chief Minister to frame award with regard to Mukundooru         C
    village and disburse compensation amount, it is already
    informed in the letter dated 30.07.2009 bearing No. RD
    113 BhuSwaHa 2009 to initiate action as per the said
    order. Wherefore, I am directed to inform you to initiate
    action .as already directed by the Governor (sic
    Government)."                                                   D

     5. The petitioners' case was that on account of the
seepage from the distributory canal of the reservoir, they had
suffered serious damage to their houses and, on their
representations, the Government had already taken a decision E
to acquire the property. The land acquisition officer, according
to the petitioners, had on 15.04.1999, initiated proceedings
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, thereafter,
Section 6 Declaration was issued. However, the proceedings
got lapsed since no award was passed within the period · F
prescribed under Section 11A of the Act.

     6. It is seen as per Annexure-P2 - Notification dated
27.10.2007, that the Land Acquisition Collector had initiated
proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act for acquiring the
lands of the petitioners and it was followed by Section 6           G
declaration dated 15.10.2008 published on 23.10.2008. Since,
no serious steps were taken to complete the acquisition by
passing the awards, it appears, the petitioners approached the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in 2011
for a direction to compel the land acquisition collector to /act    H
    250      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A as per the instruction issued by the Government and to
  complete the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single
  Judge, by order dated 07 .03.2011 disposed of the writ petitions
  directing the land acquisition colle.ctor and the State to pass
  awards in the case of the petitioners and a few others within
B four weeks from the receipt of the Order. There was also a
  further direction that the petitioners should vacate the property
  if they were still in possession and that they should handover
  possession prior to the receipt of the compensation.

C       7. Aggrieved, land acquisition collector, State and others
  filed Writ Appeals leading to the impugned Judgment dated
  09.12.2011. It was contended that the hardships on account
  of seepage could. be resolved by constructing 'a drainage
  canal' and acquisition for that reason was not necessary and
  not in contemplation also. The Judgment of the Single Judge
D was set aside and the Appeals were disposed of with the
  direction to complete the canal project within three months. It
  was also clarified that the petitioners were free to initiate
  appropriate legal action in case there was still seepage. Thus,
  aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the Special Leave Petitions.
E
        8. Under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, the
  Collector is to pass the award under Section 11 within a period
  of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration
  and, in case no award is made within that period, the entire
F proceedings for acquisition of the land would lapse. In the
  instant case, the declaration under Section 6 dated 15.10.2008
  published on 23.10.2008 had already lapsed by the time the
  writ petitioners had approached the High Court. This crucial
  factual position, unfortunately, has not been taken note of by the
G High Court. The Court cannot compel the land acquisition
  collector to pass awards in respect of the land acquisition
  proceedings which had already lapsed. That apart, under the
  scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is at liberty
  to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which
H possession has not been taken at any stage prior to the
    JAYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,                     251
        HASSAN DIST., HASSAN [KURIAN, J.]
 passing of the award. In case the owner, in consequence of            A
 such withdrawal, has suffered any damages, he is entitled to
 compensation in that regard, under Section 48 of the Act, which
 reads as follows:

      "48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but               8
      compensation to be awarded when not completed.-
      (1) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the
      Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
      acquisition of any land of which possession has not been
      taken.
                                                                       c
      (2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any such
      acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of
      compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner
      in consequence of the notice or of any proceedings
      thereunder, and shall pay such amount to the person              D
      interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by
      him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act
      relating to the said land.

      (3) The provisions of Part Ill of this Act shall apply, so far   E
      as may be, to the determination of the compensation
      payable under this section."

       9. In the case on hand, there is no question of any such
  Notification on withdrawal since the proceedings had already
  lapsed. Admittedly, no possession had been taken. Therefore,         F
· Section 36 does not apply. Whether to acquire a particular
  property or not is for the Government to decide. It is not within
  the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to
  acquire any property, otherwise than as per the Land
  Acquisition Act. No doubt, the High Court exercises judicial         G
  review of administrative action or inaction. But having regard
  to the various facts and circumstances or factors, it is for the
  Government to consider at the permissible stage as to whether
  a particular property is to be acquired or whether an Award is
  to be passed pursuant to proceedings already initiated under         H
    252      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A Section 4(1) of the Act. The Act is a complete code as far as
  such decisions are concerned and Government is well within
  their jurisdiction to act as per the scheme provided under the
  Act. Merely because proceedings under Section 4 of the Land
  Acquisition Act has been initiated, it is not required under law
B to acquire the land. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Court
  to compel the Government to pass an Award pursuant to
  Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act even when it
  is followed by the declaration.

        10. Even otherwise, the writ petition was wholly
C misconceived. The prayer is for direction to the land acquisition
  collector to act in terms of letter issued to the land acquisition
  collector by the secretary to the Government. If a subordinate
  authority in the Government does not act in terms of the
  direction or instruction issued by the superior authority, it is not
D for the Court to compel that subordinate <lUthority to comply with
  the instruction or direction issued by the superior authority, if it
  is not otherwise governed by a statutory procedure. Court is
  not the executing forum of the instruction issued by the
  Government to its subordinates. That jurisdiction lies elsewhere
E under the scheme of the Constitution. Therefore, on that count
  also, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

        11. Yet with all these, the fact remains that the residential
  houses of the petitioners are in the seepage affected area in
F Mukundur village coming under 6th District Minor Hemavathi Left
  Bank Canal. Despite decades long efforts made by the
  petitioners, it appears even the .cement concrete lining to the
  canal has been done only recently and that too in order to avoid
  the acquisition for which twice notifications had already been
G issued. It has to be noted that the agricultural land of the
  petitioners had already been acquired and what remained was
  only the residential part. Petitioners had the grievance that on
  account of the seepage, there was dampness resulting also in
  cracks on the building. In view of the miseries suffered by these
  poor persons, we are of the view that it will not be just and fair
H
   JAYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,                    253
       HASSAN DIST., HASSAN [KURIAN, J.]
to relegate them to workout their remedies before the civil court    A
for damages, at this instance of time. Therefore, in the interests
of justice and in order to do complete justice, we order that
each of the petitioners shall be paid a lump sum amount of Re.1
lakh each towards damages for the hardships they have already
undergone on account of seepage resulting in dampness and            B
cracks to their residential buildings. The respondents 7/8 shall
see that the amount as above is deposited in the bank account
of the respective petitioner within three months. We, however,
make it clear that this Judgment shall not stand in the way of
the respondents, if so required or warranted in public interest,     c
acquiring the disputed lands .

   . 12. Subject to the above, the appeals are dismissed. No
costs.

R.P.                                        Appeals dismissed.       D