STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusD.R. LAXMI AND ORS.

                  STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.                                     A
                                       v
                         D.R. LAXMI AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 12, 1996

 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                             B

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

      Section 4( 1)-Does 11ot e11visage specification of the nature of the land
as to whether it is waste or arable la11d when the 11otification is published.    C
       Section 17(4)-11wugh lands situated ill Urban areas, Urban Land
Ceili11g Act recognises the existence of a151icultural lands within urban ag-
gelomeration-Wlien the lands were capable of raising crops, they remain to
be anzble lands-Hence exercise of power under S.17(4) by the Govemment
was not bad in law.                                                               D
       Sections 4(1), 6, 16, 17(2) & 48-Absence of publication of the sub-
stance of the notification in the locality-Wliether re11ders the proceedings
void--Held, conduct of parties to be considered--After possession was taken,
the lands stood vested in the State free from all e11cumbra11ces-11ierefore the
title validly vested i11 the Govemme11t cannot be divested-Moreover deter-        E
mination of compe11sation attained finality-Also it was not a case to shift
the date for the detennination of compensation--Court should be loathe to
quash the notification.

      Co11Stitution of India, 1950 :
                                                                                  F
       Art. 226-Extraordinmy jurisdictio11-Discretionary powers-Exercise
of-All relevant factors to be taken i11to pra151natic consideration-Land Ac-
quisition proceedings-Award passed and has become final--Land also
vested in Govemme11t-Fili11g of writ petition after inordinate delay-In such
circumstances Cowt should be loathe to quash the notifications.                   G

      lshwarlal Girdharilal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, [1968) 2 SCR 267,
followed.

     Sanjeevanagar Medical & Health Employees' Co-operative Society v.
Mohd. Abdul Wahab & Ors., [1996) 3 SCC 600; Satendra Prasad lain v. State         H
                                       221
    222                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   of U.P., (1993] 4 SCC 369 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v.
    Industrial Development & Investment Co. (P) Ltd., C.A. No. 282 of 1989
    decided on 6.9.96, relied on.

            Nutakki Sesharatanam v. Sub-Collector, L.A. Vijayawada, (1992] 1
    sec 114, dissented from.
B
          Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Jolui & Ors., (1992] 1 SCC
    328, distinguished.

          Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. 17ie State of Utt~r Pradesh & Ors., AIR
    (1967) SC 1081 and M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi & Ors., [1992] 2
c   sec 168, referred to.
          ''Administrative Law" by H.W.R. Wade (7th Edition) pages 342-43
    referred to.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2411 of
D   1993.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.85 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in D.B.C.W.P. No. 602 of 1978.

            Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants.
E
          Rajinder Sachhar, H.K.Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee and Rajesh Srivastava,
    for the Respondent.

            Ms. Niranjana Singh for Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondent Nos.
    5-6.
F
            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This appeal by special leave arises from the Division Bench judgment
    of the High Court of Rajasthan made on September 2, 1985 in W.P. No.
G   602/78. The admitted facts are that the notification under Section 4(1) of
    the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was
    published in the State Gazette on March 23, 1977 acquiring 31.28 acres of
    land for defence purpose. Enquiry under Section 5-A was dispensed with
    in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and declaration
    under Section 6 was published on April 28, 1976. Possession was taken on
H   May 19, 1977. The award was passed under Section 11 on March 21, 1978.
                            STATE v. D.R. IAXMI                             223

The reference under Section 18 was sought and made in March 1978 to A
Civil Court for enhancement of the compensation. In September 1978, the
respondent filed writ petition in the High Court seeking to quash the
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. The
learned single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench. The
Division Bench has held that the acquired land is not an arable or waste
land and, therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) of the
                                                                           B
Act was bad in law. Substance of the notification under Section 4(1) was
not published in the locality. The notification under Section 4(1) did not
mention that it was a waste or arable land. On these grounds, the learned
judges have quashed the notification. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
                                                                                   c
        Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, has
contended that the view of the High Court is clearly erroneous. It is not
necessary that the notification under Section 4(1) should contain a decla-
ration that the needed land is a waste or arable land. The finding that it is
neither waste nor arable land is not correct so long a the land is capable         D
of cultivation. If no cultivation was made it would still be arable land.
Therefore, the view that it is neither waste nor arable land is not correct.
It is difficult to accept that the entire six acres of land which is now claimed
by the respondents was within the compound wall as found by the High
Court. The view that substance of the notification was not published in the
locality was not correct in law without any further discussion on facts or         E
legal principles. Even the finding cannot be well supported by any material
on record; in law the High Court was wrong in intereferring under Article
226 of the Constitution~ Shri Rajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel for
the respondents, contended that since the substance of the notification
under Section 4(1) was not published which is mandatory, the notification          F
under Section 4(1), and declaration under Section 6 could be challenged
at any time even after the award was made or possession was taken. Since
publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is the foundation for
taking further steps for the acquisition, procedural steps required under
the Act should be followed. The substance of the notification under Section
4(1) was not published in the locality. So all the proceedings which had           G
subsequently been taken place stand nullified. Therefore, the Court would
in an appropriate case grant the declaration including to quash the award
and future steps. He also contended that it would be difficult to accept that
the lands are arable lands, if not waste land. The finding that the land is
arable land is based on consideration of the material on record. Therefore,        H
    224                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   it is not arable land. Further, it is contended that the respondent had stated
    in the High Court that he was prepared to accept the compensation
    provided the date of notification under Section 4(1) was shifted to four or
    five years later to the actual date of the notification under Section 4(1)
    published on March 23, 1977. He would stand by the same offer and,
    therefore, it is not a case warranting interference.
B
         The questions, therefore, are: (1) whethe1· the notification under
  Section 4(1) should contain the declaration that the lands are waste or
  arable lands; (2) whether the exercise of the power under Section 17(4)
  was vitiated by the finding that the lands were not capable of cultivation
C being situated in urban area; (3) whether the substance of the notification
  published under Section 4(1) was not published in the locality;_ if it not
  complied with, when the entire acquisition proceedings had become final,
  whether the High Court was justified in exercising the power under Article
  226? It is not necessary to recapitulate all the facts narrated above. Suffice
D it to state that after the reference was made to the Civil Court, it passed
  an award under Section 26 which was challenged by the State by filing an
  appeal under Section 54 against the enhanced compensation. Thereby, the
  respondents had accepted the award. The State feeling aggrieved by the
  enhanced compensation, filed an appeal in the High Court. The High
E Court, by judgments dated May 5, 1982 and September 23, 1982, dismissed
  the appeals which became final. Thus, the acquisition proceedings became
  final.

         The question, therefore, as said above is : whether the High <;;ourt
  is justified in interfering with these matters? Section 4(1) of the Act does
F not require to specify the nature of the land, i.e. whether it is arable or
  waste land. The object of the publication of the notification under Section
  4(1) was that (1) the land is needed for a public purpose or is likely to be
  needed; (2) the officers of the State are authorised to enter upon the land
  and carry on measurement etc.; and (3) the owner/interested person was
G put on notice that any encumbrance hereafter would not bind the State.
  Therefore, Section 4(1) does not envisage specification of the nature of the
  land, i.e. whether it is waste or arable land, when the same was published.
  The view, therefore, of the High Court that the notification under Section
  4(1) should contain a declaration of- the nature of the land is clearly
H erroneous.
                          STATE v. D.R. LAXMI                           225

       Second question whether the land is waste or arable, is a mixed A
question of facts and law. It depends upon the facts in each case. In this
case, it is seen that on their own showing, the land of an extent of 6 acres
belonging to the respondents was sought to be acquired along with other
vast extent of land. It consists of open land as well as building and the
servant quarters. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer has been
                                                                             B
placed before us. The building was not acquired for the public purpose but
only servant quarters came to be acquired. From this background, the
question arises: whether the land is arable .land? This question was con-
sidered by a Bench of three Judges in Ishwarlal Girdharilal Joshi v. State
of Gujarat, (1968] 2 SCR 267. After elaborate consideration of the various
judgments of the High Courts and dictionary meaning of the words "arable"      c
in that behalf, this Court has relied thus :

        "There is no definition of the word 'arable' in the original Land
        Acquisition Act. A local amendment includes garden lands in the
        expression. Now lands are of different kinds: there is waste-land D
        desert-land, pasture-land, meadow-land, grass-land, wood-land,
        marshy-land, hilly-land, etc. and arable land. The Oxford biction-
        ary gives the meaning or 'arable' as capable of being ploughed;
        fit for tillage; opposed to pasture-land or wood land and gives the
        root as arable is in Latin. The learned Judges have unfortunately
        not given sufficient attention to the kinds of land and the contrast E
        mentioned with the meaning. Waste- land comes from the Latin
        vastitas or vastus (empty, desolate, without trees or grass or build-
        ings). It was always usual to contrast vastus within incultus (uncul-
        tivated) as in the phrase 'to lay waste' (agri vastate). A meadow
        or pasture-land is pratum and arable is arvum and Cicero spoke F
        of prata et a1va (meadow and arable lands). Grass-land is not
        meadow or pasture- land and in Latin is known as campus as for
        example the well- known Campus Martius at Rome, where the
        comitia (assembly of the Roman people) used to meet. Woodlands
        is silvae, nemora or saltus."
                                                                               G
      This was considered also by the Constitution Bench in Raja Anand
Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1081. In
that case, the acquired lands were mineral lands for mining purpose.
Therefore, the question arose: whether they were arable lands? On the
facts of this case, the Constitution bench came to the conclusion that since   H
    226                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A they were not arable lands, the exercise of the power under Section 17(4)
    was not justified in law. In view of the fact that the Act itself has considered
    as to when the land could be considered to be arable land, as explained by
    this Court, the interpretation put up in lshwar Lal's case is in the correct
    perspective. The Court has power to consider the question in that light. In
    considering the question whether the land is arable or waste, dictionary
B   meaning does not help the Court to solve the problem. Pragmatic ap-
    proach is required to be adopted in considering the question on the facts
    in each case. Though the lands in this case were situated in urban area, the
    urban Land Ceiling Act itself recognises existence of the agricultural lands
    within the urban agglomeration and they are dealt with accordingly. When
c   the lands were capable of raising crops, they remained to be arable lands.
    Therefore, the exercise of the power under Section 17(4) by the Govern-
    ment was not bad in law. On facts, it is an arable land capable to cultiva-


D
    tion. It is seen that it being a small area comprising servant quarter as part
    of a large area, including six areas of respondent's lands, it cannot be said
    that the rest of the ·1and is occupied by the buildings ·or is within the
                                                                                       -
    compound though situated in urban area. The view of the High Court,
    therefore, was clearly erroneous.

          The question is: whether the absence of the publication of the
   substance of the notification in the locality renders the entire proceedings
E void? We need not dilate upon the question whether local publication of
   substance of Section 4(1) notification is mandatory or directory. Since this
   Court has consistently taken the view that compliance of the requirement
   of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) in the Gazette as
   well as publication of the substance of the notification in the locality now
F under the Amended Act in the newspaper, is mandatory requirement. As
    the facts are not in controversy, as mentioned in the judgment of the High
    Court, the substance of the notification was not published in the locality;
    we proceed on the premise that second step, namely, publication of the
    substance of the notification in the locality, was not taken. The question
G then is : whether Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration are
    required to be quashed? In this regard, we have to consider the conduct
    of the parties and the effect thereof. Under the Scheme of the Act, After
  . the possession of the land was taken either under Section 17(2) or Section
   16, the land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances. There-
   after, there is no provision under the Act to divest the title which was
H validly vested in the State. Under Section 48(1) before possession is taken,
                         STATE v. D.R. LAXMI                        227

the State Government is empowered to withdraw from the acquisition by A
its publication in the Gazette. In this regard, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court has considered the question in Sanjeevanagar Medical & Health
Employees' Co-operative Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab & Ors., [1996] 3
sec 600 and held in paragraph 12 thus :
                                                                           B
       "That apart, as facts disclose, the award wa,s made on 24.U.1980
       and the writ petition was filed on 9.8.1982. It is not in dispute that
       compensation was deposited in the Court of the Subordinat~
       Judge. It is asserted by the appellant Society that possession of the
        land was delivered to it and the land had been divided and allotted
        to its members for construction of houses and that construction of C
        some houses had been commenced by the date the writ petition
       was filed. It would be obvious that the question of division of the
       ·properties among its m(!mbers and allotment of the respective plots
        to them would arise only after the Land Acquisition Officer had
        taken possession of the acquired land and handed it over to the D
        appellant Society. By operation of Section 16, the land stood vested
        in the State free from all encumbrances. In Satendra Prasad Jain
        v. State of U.P., [1993] 4 SCC 369, the question arose: whether
        notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section
        6 gets lapsed if the award is not made within two years as envisaged
        under Section 11-A? A Bench of three Judges had held that once E
        possession w;;i.s taken and the land vested in the government, title
        tc the land so vested in the State is subject only to determination
        of compensation and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting the
        title to the land statutorily vested in the Government and reverting
        the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act. Only F
       Section 48(1) gives power to withdraw from acquisition that too
       before possession is taken. That question did not arise in this case.
        The property under acquisition having been vested in the appel-
        lants, in the absence of any power under the Act to have the title
        of the appellants divested except by exercise of the power under
       Section 48(1), valid title cannot be defeated. The exercise of the G
       power to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and the decla-
       ration under Section 6 would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the
       High Court under those circumstances should not have interfered
        with the acquisition and quashed the notification and declaration
        under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. Considered from either H
    228                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A            perspective, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in
             allowing the writ petition."

           In Satinder Prasad Jain's case another Bench of three Judges had
    held that though award under Section 11-A was not made within two years
    after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force, the title having been
B   vested in the State, the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration
    under Section 6 do not get lapsed and non-compliance of statutory
    provisions does not have the effect of divesting the title of the land vested
    in the Government free from all encumbrances.

c        Recently, another Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of
  Grater Bombay v. Industrial Deve/Opment & Investment Co. (P) Ltd., C.A.
  No. 282 of 1989 decided on September 6, 1996 re-examined the entire case
  law and had held that once the land was vested in the State; the Court was
  not justified in interfering with the notification published under ap-
D propriate provisions of the Act. Delay in challenging the notification was
  fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on grounds of laches. It is thus,
  well settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition
  and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final,
  the Court should be loathe to quash the notifications. The High Cour.t has,
  no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the constitution to
E quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section
  6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic
  consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the
  Court shoul~ not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a
  material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power
F under Article 226. The fact that no third party rights were crated in the
   case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division Bench of the High
  Court was not right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the
  learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition or the ground of laches.
  Reliance was placed by Shri Sachhar on M.P. Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi
  & Ors., [1992] 2 SCC 168 in particular paragraph 8, wherein it was held
G that compliance of the requirements is mandatory and non-compliance
  thereof renders all subsequent proceedings connected therewith unexcep-
  tionably illegal; but the question is what will be its effect. That was not the
  question in that case, since no award had come to be passed in Nutakki
  Sesharatanam v. Sub-Collector, LA., Vijayawada, [1992] 1 SCC 114 a
H two-Judge Bench of this Court had held that if the requirements of Section
                               STATE v. D.R. LAXMI                           229

     4 are not complied with, all proceedings had become invalid and possession     A
     was directed to be re-delivered to the appellant. We are of the view that
     the ratio therein is not correctly laid down. The question whether violation
1(   of the mandatory provisions renders the result of the action as void or
     voidable has been succingly considered in "Administrative Law" by H.W.R.
     Wade (7th Edition) at page 342-43 thus :
                                                                                    B
             "The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order
             only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right
             proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically
             a nullity, but the court may refuse to quash it because of the
             plantiffs's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discre- C
             tionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other
             legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective
             and is, in reality, valid. It follows that an order may be void for
             one purpose and valid for another; and that it may be void against
             one person· but valid against another. A common case where an D
             order, however void, becomes valid is where a statutory time limit
             expires after which its validity cannot be questioned. The statute
             does not say that the void order shall be valid; but by cutting of
             legal remedies it produces that result."

            The order or action, if ultra vires the power, it becomes void and it E
     does not confer any right. But the action need not necessarily set at naught
     in all events. Though the order may be void, if the party does not approach
     the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and
     have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the
     Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the discretion has F
     been conferred on the Court, the Court may in appropriate case decline
     to grant the relief, even if it holds that the order was void. The net result
     is that extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court may not be exercised in such
     circumstances. It is seen that the acquisition has become final and not only
     possession had already been taken but reference was also sought for; the G
     award of the Court under Section 26 enhancing the compensation was also
     accepted. The order of the appellate court had also become final. Under
     those circumstances, the acquisition proceedings having become final and
     the compensation determined also having become final, the High Court
     was highly unjustified in interfering with and in quashing the notification
     under Section 4 (1) and declaration under Section 6.                          H
    230                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          It is true that the respondent had offered to accept the compensation
    by s.hifting the date of the notification by 4 to 5 years from the date of the
    notification under Section 4(1). For this view, reliance was placed by Shri
    Sacher on the judgment of this Court in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj
    Kumar Johri & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 328 where this Court had allowed the
    shifting of the date for the determination of the compensation. In that case
B   since the award had not been passed, this Court had given the direction
    but in this case award determining the compensation has attained finality.
    it is not a case to shift the date for the determination of the compensation.
    Thus considered, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified
    in interfering with the notification and declaration under Section 4(1) and
c   6.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court
    stands set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed but, in the circumstan-
    ces, without costs.

D G.N.                                                           Appeal allowed.