Hussain Vs. State of M.P. & Anr  INSC 68 (18 January 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1995 AIR 2243 1995 SCC (2) 422 JT 1995 (2) 93 1995 SCALE (1)409
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Madhva
Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc.Petition No.484 of 1987,
Notification under section (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued acquiring
a large extent of 387.50 acres of land for submergence of Barna Dam irrigation
project in the State of M.P. The lands of the appellant were
Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 5.9.1969 awarded compensation to
the appellant. Thereafter, it would appear that the appellant had received the
compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest but,
according to the appellant, it was under protest. Be it as it may, on the
rejection of the reference, the appellant filed a revision before the District
Judge in 1982. By order dated 20.6.82, the District Judge rejected the re-
vision. In 1987, the appellant filed the Writ Petition in the High Court which
was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of inordinate delay. It was held
that though the Collector had rejected the reference on 2.4.75, the revision
was filed in the Tribunal and the District Judge rejected it on 29.6.83. The petitioner
who had slept over the matter for more than 5 years, filed the Writ Petition.
From the date of the order of the L.A. Collector till date of filling the writ
petition more than 10 years have elapsed. On that ground the High Court refused
to grant the relief.
State Legislature of M.P. amended clause (b) of sub-s.(2) of sec. 18 and
order made by the Collector on the application under this section shall be
subject to the revision by the High Court as if the collector were the Court
subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 C.P.C."
Thus, it could be seen that against the order of rejection of reference by the
Collector on 2 5.75 only jurisdiction that could be exercised as per the
amendment is by the High Court under s.115 C.P.C. Thereby, by exercise of the
power by District Judge in this behalf is clearly without authority of law or jurisdiction.
The order of the District Judge, therefore, is a nullity.
Then we have to see whether the appellant was justified in approaching the High
Court after an inordinate delay of more than 10 years from the date of the
order of the Collector or at any rate from the date of the order passed by the
District Judge. The High Court exercised its juris- diction under Art.226 but
not under s. 115 C.P.C. Even if it is to be converted as a revision under Sec.
115 C.P.C., the order of the High Court is not vitiated by any error of
jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The
High Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction after
an inordinate delay of more than 5 years from the date of the order of the
District Judge and more than 10 years from the date of the 96 order of the Land
Acquisition Collector. Under these circumstances, we do not think that it is a
case warranting interference by this Court under Article 136.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.