Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusCHATRO DEVI & ORS.

Citation: 2014 INSC 368
Decided: 7 May 2014
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: B S CHAUHANJASTI CHELAMESWARM Y EQBAL

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that objections under Section 5‑A do not invalidate or stay the acquisition proceedings, in line with its earlier decision in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478‑5483 of 2014.

Summary

The appeals filed by the Union of India and other respondents challenged the validity of acquisition proceedings that had been initiated after tenure‑holders raised objections under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners contended that the objections were maintainable and that the subsequent acquisition should be set aside. The Supreme Court examined the earlier judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478‑5483 of 2014, which had clarified the law on the effect of objections filed under Section 5‑A. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the objections did not stay the acquisition process and that the proceedings could not be sustained. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Issues considered

What is the legal effect of objections filed by tenure‑holders under Section 5‑A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on subsequent acquisition proceedings?
Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated after such objections are liable to be quashed?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 5-A

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 5-AObjections by tenure‑holdersSupreme CourtAppeal dismissedAcquisition proceedings

Judgment

                    [2014] 8 S.C.R. 781


                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                            A
                              v.
                  CHATRO DEVI & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal Nos. 1831-1836 of 2009)
                       MAY 07, 2014
                                                                  B
  [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND M.Y.
                  EQBAL, JJ.]

    Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.5-A - Objections filed by
tenure-holders uls. 5-A - Subsequent proceedings quashed          C
- Held: In view of C.A. No. 5478-8312014, State's appeal is
dismissed.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
1831-1836 of 2009.                                                D
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.05i.2007 of the
High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) Nos. 424 of 19817, 2746 of
1985, 2815 of 1985, 607 of 1987, 2469 of 1985 aAd 1950 of
1985.
                                                                  ·E
                            WITH

C.A. Nos. 903 of 2010, 7439 of 2009, 8483 of 2003, 5484-
88, 5489-94, 5495-98, 5499-501 of 2014.

     P. P. Malhotra, ASG, J. S. Attri, Geeta Luthra, Sanjay        F
Poddar, Vinay Bhasin, Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Shyam
Divan, A. Sharan, Sandeep Bajaj, Siddharth Panda, D. S.
Mahra, Anshuman Nayak, Shadman Ali, Gaurav Sharma,
Chetan Chawla, Govind Kumar, Sonia Malhotra, Priyanka
Bharihoke, Yasir Rauf, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, D.      G
N. Goburdhan, Narendra Goyal, Naina Dubey, Rohit Bhardwaj,
Anil Katiyar, H. S. Raina, Bhargava V. Desai, Shreyas Mehrotra,
R. N. Karanjawala, Manik Karanjawala, Ruby Singh Ahuja,
Krishna Hariani, Rohit Sharma, Aakanksha Munjhal,
                               781                                 H
    782       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 8 S.C.R


A Karanjawala & Co.. , S. S. Khanduja, Archana Sharma,
  Meenakshi Kalra, Shobha, Yash Pal Dhingra, Indra Sawhney,
  Simran Mehta, Arvind Minocha, Veena· Minocha, Sumit Bansal,
  Ateev Mathur, Richa Oberoi, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Pankaj
  Gupta, Anusuya Salwan, S. Janani, Kunal Kohli, G. Umapathy,
B Rakesh      K.    Sharma,     Venkatasubramanian,         S.
  Ramasubramanian, R. Mekhala, P. V. Yogeswaran, Manish
  Kumar, Amit Kumar, Piyush Kaushik, Rakesh K. Sharma, N.
  S. Vasisht, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Sumit Bansal,
  Gagan Gupta, Ateev P. Mathur, Vishnu B. Saharya (for Saharya
c & Co.), Advocates, with them for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                               ORDER

0        1. The facts and issue involved/ in the abovesaid appeals
    are identical and have to be decided in terms of our judgment
    passed today in Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 of 2014.

         2. The appeals are dismissed in terms thereof. No order
    as to costs.
E
    Devika Gujral                                Appeals 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