Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSITARAM SHIVHANDRAI GARODIA AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1278
Decided: 4 November 1996
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

The government may still implead the respondents and proceed with the acquisition, and the respondents may raise any defence available to them.

Summary

The Union of India sought to acquire 130 acres 19 guntas of land in Survey No. 249 for a railway project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The railway later withdrew its proposal, and the respondents challenged the acquisition, arguing that the earlier High Court had set aside eviction proceedings and that they were not impleaded in the suit filed by the government. The Supreme Court noted that, despite the respondents not being parties to the suit, the government retains the power to implead them and the respondents may raise any defence available. Consequently, the Court held that the matter remains open for the government to take appropriate steps, and the appeal was disposed of without costs. The decision effectively dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquisition process pending subject to proper impleadment and defence.

Issues considered

Whether the withdrawal of the railway's proposal bars further acquisition of the land.
Whether the government can proceed with acquisition when the respondents have not been impleaded in the suit.
What defences are available to the respondents in such circumstances.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

Land acquisitionRailway projectWithdrawal of proposalImpleadmentEvictionCivil appealSupreme Court of India

Judgment

                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                               A
                             v.
           SITARAM SHIVHANDRAI GARODIA AND ANR.

                        NOVEMBER 4, 1996

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

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

      Land acquired for Railway purpose-Subsequently proposal given
up-Eviction of erstwhile owners by the Government-Set aside by the C
High Court in similar case-Respondents not impleaded-Open to
Government to take steps to implead them-Respondents to take such defence
as is available.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14781 of
1996.                                                                   [)

     From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.94 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No . .2705 of 1986.

     N.N. Goswamy, S.N. Sikka and D.S. Mehra for the Appellants.
                                                                        E
    F.S. Nariman, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms.
Monika Mehta and Aman Vachhar for the Respondents.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                        F
     Leave granted.

     We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

    This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division G
Bench of the High Court of Bombay, dated August 11, 1994 made in
W.P.No.2705 of 1986.

      It is not necessary to dilate upon all the facts concerning the case.
Suffice it to state that the respondents have challenged the acquisition of
part of the land in Survey No. 249 admeasuring 130 acres 19 Guntas H
                                     389
    390                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.


A which the respondent claims to have purchased. It would appear that in
    the affidavit filed by the Railway, they have .given up the proposal for the
    acquisition of the land for Railway purpose. Under those circumstdnces,
    there is no necessity to proceed further with the acquisition. It is then
    contended by Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the
    respondents, that in W.P. No. ·1003 of 1Q82 titled Sitaram Shivchand
B Garodia and Anr. v. S. V. Gokhale, the Assistant Salt Commissioner and
  Ors. the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated April 28, 1983
  had allowed the writ petition setting aside the proceedings for summary
  eviction of them from the land in their occupation with liberty' for the
  Union of India. to file a suit to establish their title to the ·iand. When
  S.L.P.(C) Nos. 8706 of 1984 and 11507-08 of 1983, against the said
C judgment were filed, by Order dated March 30, 1987, this Court refused
 ·to grant leave. The appellant's attempt to have respondent evicted from
  the lands stands conclude4 subject to the division in the suit. We are informed
  that though the appellants have filed Suit No. 670/87 on the original side
  of the High Court, it is contended that as per the cause title, it would
  appear that the respondents have not been impleaded as party-defendants.
D We need not go into the correctness thereof, since the respondents though
  exf~cie are shown to be not parties to the suit; even then, it would be open
  to the Government to take steps as may be available under law for
  impleading them as defendants, if not already impleaded, and in such
  eventuality it would be open to the respondents, to take such defence as is
  available.
E
           The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

    G.N.                                                    Appeal disposed of.

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