Holding

The District Judge’s order is a nullity and the High Court was justified in refusing relief due to inordinate delay, with its exercise of Article 226 not vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Summary

The appellant's land was acquired for the Garna Dam project and a compensation award was made in 1969. The Collector rejected the reference to the award in 1975, prompting the appellant to file a revision before the District Judge in 1982, which was dismissed. After a further delay, a writ petition was filed in the High Court in 1987, which dismissed the petition on the ground of inordinate delay, noting that the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Land Acquisition Act made the Collector’s orders subject only to High Court revision under Section 115 CPC. The Supreme Court held that the District Judge had no jurisdiction, rendering his order a nullity, and that the High Court was justified in refusing relief due to the excessive delay. The Court also ruled that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 was not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the revision under the amended Section 18(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the High Court could lawfully refuse to entertain a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution due to inordinate delay.
Whether the exercise of power under Article 226 is vitiated by an error of jurisdiction or material irregularity.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115
Constitution of Indias. 226
Madhya Pradesh Land Acquisition Act, 1994s. 18(2)(b), s. 18(3), s. 4(1)

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation awardRevision jurisdictionInordinate delayArticle 226Section 115 CPCNullity of orderHigh Court discretion

Judgment

MIRZA MAJID HUSSAIN A
.-+ v.
STATE OF M.P. AND ANR .
..(
JANUARY 18, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B

The M.P. Land Acquisition Act of 1994-Sec.4( 1) 18(2) (b )as amended
-Scope of-Whether relief to be granted where the appellant approached the
High Court after an inordinate delay-Art 226 of the Constitution of India.

Upon the Collector's rejection of the reference regarding the Land
c
Acquisition Officer's compensation award of 1969, the appellant filed a
revision before the District Judge in 1982 which was rejected. The appel-
lant then filed a Writ Petition in 1987 which was rejected by the High Court
on the ground of inordinate delay. Hence this appeal. Under the amended
Sec.18(2)(b) of the Act the Collector's orders were subject to the revision D
jurisdiction of the High Court and not that of the District Court.

Dismissing appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. The Order of the District Judge is a nullity, being without
authority of law or jurisdiction. [402-H]
E

2.1 The High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discre-
tionary jurisdiction in view of the inordinate delay in approaching it.
-l'\
[403-C]
2.2 Exercise of power under Art. 226 rather than Sec. 115 of the F
C.P.C. was not vitiated by error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in
its exercise. [403-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 72 of
1992.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.1.88 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in M.P. No. 484 of 1987.

Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, K.K. Mohan, Ms. Rajshree Bhatnagar, M.R.
Krishnamurthi and Pramod Sharma for the Appellant. H
401
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A Sakesh Kumar, S.K. Agnihotri and Gautam Bose for the Rei;pon-
dents. ·

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

. , This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
B of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Petition No: 484 of 1987, dated
5.1.1988.

Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was
. issued acquiring a large extent of 837.50 acres of land for submergence of.
C ~arna Dam irrigation project in the State of M.P. The lands of the
appellant were also acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award
dated 5.9.1969 awarded compensation to the appellant. Thereafter, it
would appear that the appellant had received the compensation granted by
the Land Acquisition Officer without protest but, accordhtg to the appel-
lant, it was under protest. Be it as it may, on the rejection of the reference,
D the appellant filed a revision before the District Judge in 1982. By order
dated 20.6.82, the District Judge rejected the revision. In 1987, the appel-
lant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the
High Court on the ground of inordinate delay. It was held that though the
Collector had rejected the reference on 2.4.75, the revision was filed in the
E Tribunal and the Distt. Judge rejected it on 29.6.83. The petitioner who
had slept over the matter for more than 5 years, filed the Writ Petition.
From the date of the order of the L.A. Collector till date of filing the writ
petition more tlian 10 years have elapsed. On that ground the High Court
refused to grant the relief.
n-
F The State Legislature of M.P. amended clause {b) of sub-s.(2) of
sec.18 and inserted sub-s. (3) thus :

"Any order made by the Collector on the application under
this section shall be subject to the revision by the High Court as
if the collector were the Court subordinate to the High Court
G within the meaning of Section 115 C.P.C."

Thus, it could be seen that against the order of rejection of reference by
the Collector on 2.5.75 only jurisdiction that could be exercised as per the
amendment is by the High Court under s.115 C.P.C. Thereby, the exercise
H of the power by District Judge in this behalf is clearly without authority of
MAJID HUSSAIN v. STATE OF M.P. 403

law or jurisdiction. The Order of the .District Judge, therefore, is nullity. A
Then we have to see whether the appellant was justified in approach-
ing the High Court after an inordinate delay of more than 10 yea.rs from
the date of the order of the Collector or at any rate from the date of the
order passed by the District Judge. The High Court exercised its jurisdic-
tion under Art. 226 but not under s.115 C.P.C. Even if it is to be converted B
as a revision under sec. 115 C.P.C., the order of the High Court is not
vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise
,..) of its jurisdiction. The High Court has rightly refused to exercise its
. discretionary jurisdiction after an inordinate delay of more than 5 years
from the date of the order of the District Judge and more than 10 years <C
from the date of the order of the Land Acquisition Collector. Under these
circumstances, we do not think that it is a case warranting interference by
this Court under Article 136.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

......... A.G . Appeal dismissed.