THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLESversusN. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC.

                          [2017] 3 S.C.R. 529


       THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET                           A
         COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
                                   v.
               N. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC.
                 (Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-5274of2017)                     B
                            APRIL 17,2017
           [RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
         Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6(1) - Notifications
  under, for acquisition of lands for expansion of appellants
  marketing yard - Challenged by landowners - Single Judge of High
                                                                         c
  Court held that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-
  compliance, however, keeping in view the public interest involved,
  instead of setting aside the proceedings it shifted the date of
  notification u/s.4(1) for determination of compensation - Jn appeals
; by landowners and the appellant, Division Bench concurring with        D
  the Single Judge declined inte1jerence with the acquisition
  proceedings in view of the larger public importance of the
  acquisition - On appeal, held: Keeping in mind the larger public
  interest involved in the acquisition, order of the High Court calls
  for no interference - The Right to Fair Compensation and
                                                                         E
  Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
  Act, 2013 - s.24(2).
        Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors.
        (2005) 13 SCC 477 : (2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421 - relied
        on.
                                                                         F
                        Case Law Reference
  [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421               relied on           Para9
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-
  5274 of2017.
                                                                         G
        From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the High Court
  of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. A. Nos. 5-8, 33-34, 35-40, 41, 45,
  5247-51, 47, 48, 5214-16, 49 & 5261 of201 I and R. P. No. 302 of2011
                                    WITH
  C. A. Nos. 5275-5278, 5279-5287of2017.                                 H
                                 529
530            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 3 S.C.R.


A            Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, V. Lakshmi Narayanna. Sr. Advs., Dr. Nanda
      Ki shore, Nishanth Patil, Abinash Ku111ar Mishra, Shantha Kumar Mahale,
      G. D. Ashwaitha Narayana, Amith J., V. N. Raghupathy, Anup Jain,
      Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
              2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the acquisition of
      42 acres 32 guntas oflands in village Go! i111angala, Saijapur Hobli, Anchal
      Taluk, District Bangalore, for expansion of the Appellant's marketing
      yard. Noticing infirmities in the acquisition proceedings, but declining to
c     quash the acquisition adverting to the larger public purpose, the High
      Court shifted the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the date
      of its order i.e. 22.11 .2010, for determination of compensation. Aggrieved
      by the order, both the Appellant and the landowners are in appeal before
D     this Court.
             3. The statutory notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
      published on 20.5.2002 and the Award made on 31.01.2005. On a
      challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the landowners, the Learned
      Single Judge, after perusing the original acquisition records, held that the
 E    declaration under Section 6( 1) of the Act was made within statutory
      time from the last date of publication under Section 4( 1) of the Act. But
      that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-compliance with regard
      to publication in two daily newspapers under Section 4( I) of the Act and
      improper consideration of the objections under Section.SA of the Act.
      Adverting to the public purpose of the acquisition, the proceedings were,
 F    however, declined interference and instead, the relief was moulded relying
      upon Competent Authority vs. Baraugore Jute Factory & Ors., (2005)
       13 SCC 477, by shifting the date of the Section 4( I) Notification.
            4. Appeals were preferred both by the Landowners and the
     Appellant. The Division Bench summoned the original records afresh. It
 G arrived at a finding at variance with the Learned Single Judge for reasons
     discussed in paragraph 40 of the Order that the declaration under Section
     6( I) of the Act was not within statutory time. But, declining interference
   · with the acquisition proceedings, it concurred with the reasoning ascribed
     by the Learned Single Judge of the larger public importance of the
     acquisition.
 H
 THE SPL. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MKT. COMMITTEE FOR                                531
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES v. N. KRISHNAPPA (NAVIN SINHA, J.]

      5. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for                  A
the Appellant - Market Committee urged that the conclusion of the
Learned Single Judge from the original records thatthe declaration under
Section 6( I) of the Act was made within statutory time of one year was
correct and warranted no interference by the Division Bench. The last
date of publication under Section 4( I) in the Chavdi of the village was
                                                                                  B
05.08.2002. The declaration made under Section 6(1) on 02.08.2003
was within time. The date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act could not have been shifted in the manner done.
       6. Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that in
the facts of the case, the High Cou11 rightly shifted the date of the Section
4(1) notification keeping in mind the larger public interest involved in the
                                                                                  c
acquisition as also the interest of the landowners.
       7. Sri V.Lakshmi Narayanna, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the landowners, submitted that once the Division Bench arrived at a
finding that the declaration under Section 6( I) of the Act was beyond
the statutory time, the acquisition proceedings could not have been               D
sustained in the manner done. Without prejudice to the same, it was
further submitted that neither had possession been taken till date nor had
compensation been disbursed to the landowners. The acquisition
proceedings, therefore, additionally stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,              E
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 I3 (hereinafter referred to as
'the 2013 Act').
       8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.·
The original acquisition records had also been summoned by us. The
observations of the Division Bench appear justified. But in the nature of         F
the order passed, moulding the reliefkeeping in mind the larger public
interest involved in the acquisition, and in view of Barcmgore Jute
r(1ctory (supra). we are not satisfied that the order of the High Court
calls for interference.
      9. In B11ra11gore Jute Factory (supra) the acquisition suffered             G
from statutory non-compliance. In view of the larger public interest
involved in the acquisition, declining to set aside the acquisition the relief
was moulded in the interest ofjustice observing:-
        " 14 ......... No useful purpose will be served by quashing the
         impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of
                                                                                  H
532              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] 3 S.C.R.


A             the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a
              fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the
              impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this
              will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices ofland,
              the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be
              more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum
              of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the
              notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and
              practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as
              against the problems involved in quashing the impugned
              notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to
c             compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners
              appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of
              justice persuade us to adopt this course of action."
             I0. Since the contention with regard to the 2013 Act will require
      examination of facts with due opportunity, we do not consider it necessary
D     to deal with the same in the present proceedings and leave it open for
      the aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance with law before
      the appropriate forum, if so advised.
             11. All the appeals are, therefore;. dismissed.

E
      Divya Pandey                                                Appeals dismissed.