Supreme Court of India

RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 739
Decided: 15 July 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

A transfer of land acquired for a public purpose to another public purpose does not invalidate the acquisition, and delay in award does not render it void; therefore the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petition challenged a land acquisition made in 1953 for the establishment of an Indian Institute of Technology, where 60.8 acres were later transferred to the National Institute of Technology (NITIE) by a government resolution. The petitioner, a sub‑lessee, claimed that he was not given notice under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that the 22‑year delay between acquisition and the award of compensation rendered the acquisition invalid. The Supreme Court held that land acquired for a public purpose may be transferred to another public purpose, and that NITIE qualifies as such, so the transfer did not vitiate the acquisition. It further observed that the delay in passing the award, given the massive nature of the acquisition, does not invalidate the award or the underlying notification and declaration. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the High Court’s refusal to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues considered

Whether land acquired for one public purpose can be validly transferred to another public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether failure to give notice under Section 5‑A to a sub‑lessee invalidates the acquisition notification and declaration.
Whether an inordinate delay of 22 years between acquisition and award vitiates the award or the acquisition proceedings.
Whether the High Court erred in refusing relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 226
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11-A proviso, s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9

Subjects

land acquisitionpublic purposetransfer of landdelay in awardnotice under Section 5-AArticle 226Special Leave PetitionNITIEIIT

Judgment

                       RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDI                                      A
                                      v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
                   THE SECRETARY AND ANR.

                               JULY 15, 1996
                                                                                 B
            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

       Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( 1), 5-A, 6,9, and 11-A proviso.

      Land Acquisition-Transfer of pmt of laiut for other public pW'             C
pose-Validity of-Land acquired for establishment of I.I. T.-Transfer of pmt
of land to N.l. T.J.E. pw:\'Uant to a Govemment Resolution-Held transfer
was not vitiated by any el1'or of law-Notification and declaration held not
invalid-Land Acquired for pi1blic pwpose can be tran;fen·ed for other public
seTVice.
                                                                                 D
     Tiie Industlial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra & Qi:,., AIR (1989) Born. 156; Union, of India v. Nand Kishore,
AIR (1982) Delhi 462, held inapplicable.

      Award-Delay in makin[jNotification under section 4(1) published on
11.7.1953-Dec/aration under section 6 published in 1955-56-Notice under          E
Section 9 issued on 15th May, 1963--0bjections filed by landowner-Personal
heming given to land owners--Tiiereafter 40 awards passed in cases involving
1nassive acquisition-Delay in ]Jassing award in such circu111stances-Held
does not vitiate the award.
                                                                                 F
       Constitution of India, 1950 : Anicle 226.

      Land acquisition-Writ--Oial/enge to notification and declaration-In-
ordinate delay of 22 years-Refusal of relief by High Coult held justified.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)                    G
No. 12902 of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 12.6.1996 of the Bombay High
Court in A. No. 423 of 1996.

       D.R. Dhanuka, Ramesh Dhanuka, Ramesh Singh and Ms. Bina H
                              581
    582                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Gupta for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

B        Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
  (for short, the 'Act') was published on .July ll, 1953. Successive declaration
  under Section 6 came to be published in the year 1955-56. Thereafter, as
  many as 40 awards have been passed determining the compensation. In this
  case notice was issued by the second respondent on May 15, 1963 under
C Section 9 of the Act pursuant to which the petitioner had filed his objec-
  tions. Thereafter, the award came to be made on 13.3.1985. He filed writ
  petition challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and
    the declaration under Section 6. Primary contention raised in the writ
  petition was that the petitioner had not been given notice under Section
  5-A whereas being a sub-lessee, he was an interested person. The High
D Court was not impressed with the argument. He further contended that
  there was inordinate delay in passing thl! award. On that account, notifica-
  tion under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 were required to
  be set aside. That contention was also negatived. The learned single .Judge
  by judgment dated February 16, 1996 dismissed the writ petition. On
E appeal, the Division Bench in the impugned order dated June 12, 1996 in
  Appeal No. 423/96 confirmed the same.
                                                                                   •
         The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the land
  in an extent of 567 acres was acquired for public purpose, namely, estab-
  lishment of IIT, transfer of 60 acres of lano to N!TIE by the UT by a
F resolution of the Government, viz., 95 of 1970, dated June 26, 1970 was
  clearly a fraud on public purpose. Therefore, the acquisition is not valid in
  law. In support thereof, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judg-
  ment of Bombay High Court in The Industrial Developn1e11t & lnvesl!nent
  Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & 01"., AIR (1989) Born. 156 and of
  Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Nand Kishore, AIR (1982) Delhi
G 462. We find no force in the contention. It is settled law that the land
   acquired for public purpose can be transferred to another public purpose.
   Paramount consideration will be service of the public purpose. The NITIE
   is also one of the public institutions imparting technical education in the
   region. Under these circumstances, the transfer of 60.8312 acres of land
H handed over to NITIE pursuant to the resolution made by the Government
                   RUDRADHAR R. TRIVEDI v. STATE                          583

is not vitiated by any error of law nor the notification under Section 4(1)      A
and declaration published under Section 6 become bad in law. The
aforesaid decisions bear no relevance.

       It is next contended that in view of the inordinate delay in passing
the award, the acquisition should be required to be quashed. We find no
force in the contention. It is seen that in Maharashtra State, as per the        B
rules prevailing, pursuant to the notice under Section 5-A a personal
hearing is required to he given to all the owners. In a massive acquisition
like this, it would be well neigh impossible to the Land Acquisition Officer
to pass the award within a short span of time. Under these circumstances,
necessarily delay had occasioned in passing the awards. The petitioner had       C
evoked at a belated stage in 1985, after practically 22 years. The High Court
was, therefore, clearly right in refusing to exercise its discretionary juris-
diction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

      The SLP is accordingly dismissed.
                                                                                 D
T.N.A.                                                    Petition dismissed.




                               •

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search