Nutakki
Sesharatanam Vs. Sub-Collector, Land Acquisition Vijayawada & Ors [1991] INSC
283 (31 October 1991)
Kania,
M.H. Kania, M.H. Sahai, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 131 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 115 1992 SCC (1) 114 JT 1991 (4) 274 1991 SCALE
(2)921
ACT:
Land
Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1)---(As amended by Andhra Pradesh (Amendment)
Act, 1983).
Land
Acquisition---Notification--Publication of sub- stance of Notification within
40 days from the date of Notification is mandatary---Noncompliance vitiates the
acquisition.
Acquisition
proceedings--Consent given for acquisition of land--Nature and effect of--Held
consent amounts to offer in terms of the Contract Act--Can be withdrawn before
it is accepted.
HEAD NOTE:
Proceedings
for acquisition of appellant's land were initiated. and a Notification under
section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Government Ga-
zette. The substance of the said Notification was published in the locality
long after 40 days within which it was required to be published under Section
4(1) of 1894 Act'as amended by the Andhra pradesh(Amendment) Act, 1983. During
the course of enquiry regarding the fixation of compensa- tion, the appellant
consented to his land being acquired provided he was given compensation in a
lump-sum. However, before any award was made he withdrew his consent and filed
a petition challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. A Single
Judge of the High Court dismissed his petition by holding that since he gave
his consent to the acquisition of land he could not challenge the acquisition
proceedings. On appeal the decision of the Single Judge was confirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court. Against the decision of the Division Bench of
the High Court, an appeal was filed in this Court.
Allowing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD:
1. The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the. High Court were clearly in
error in dismissing the respective writ petition and the appeal filed by the appel-
lant respectively. The appellant's statement- that he was willing to accept the
acquisition provided a lump-sum com- pensation was awarded to him -- amounted
115 116 in law to no more than an offer in terms of the Contract ACt. The said
offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisi- tion Officer to whom it was made.
Leave alone, making the award of lump-sum compensation, no award at all was
made by the said officer awarding compensation to the appellant till the
aforesaid-offer was withdrawn by the appellant or even till the writ petition
was filed. Till the offer was accept- ed there was no contract between the
parties and the appel- lant was entitled to withdraw his offer. There was
nothing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer, as the appellant was
in no way bound to keep the offer open indefi- nitely. 1117 G-H, 118-A]
2. The
acquisition of the appellant's land is bad in law because the substance of the
Notification was not pub- lished in the locality within forty days of the
publication of the Notification in the Government Gazette. The time- limit of
forty days for such publication in the locality has been made mandatory by
section 4(1) of the 1894 Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act,
1983. Such non-compliance renders acquisition bad in law. [118-C]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 1986.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Appeal No. 577 of 1985.
B. Kanta
Rao for the Appellant.
K. Madhava
Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special
Leave from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
dismissing the Writ Appeal No.577 of 1985 filed in that Court.
Very
few facts are necessary for the disposal of this ap- peal.
The
appellant is the owner of a plot comprising roughly 2 acres of land in Ramavarappadu
village, Vijayawada Taluk, in the Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire about 1 acre and 89 cents out of
the aforesaid land for a public propose. A Notifica- tion under section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said
Act") was published in the Government 117 Gazette on February 9, 1976. The substance of the said notification
was published in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is
situated, on April 2, 1978, long after the period of 40 days within which it
was required to be published as per the provisions of section 4(1) of the said
Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1983, (Act 9 of 1983).
Enquiry under section 5A of the said Act was dispensed with invoking the
urgency clause as per section 17(4) of the said Act. Notification under section
6 was published on the same day as the publication of the notification under
section 4(1) of the said Act. An inquiry was conducted regarding the fixation
of compensation to be awarded to the appellant and others whose lands were ac- quired
under the said notification. It appears that during the course of the said
inquiry the appellant stated to the Land Acquisition Officer concerned that he
was willing to agree to the land being acquired provided he was given
compensation in a lump-sum. Probably the reason was that if the compensation
was awarded in a lump- sum without delay, the appellant might have been able to
purchase some other land, as his holding was under the ceiling limit. The
aforesaid facts have been found by the Trial Court and accepted by the High
Court. On November 9,
1979, before any award
was made, the consent to the acquisi- tion of the land given by the appellant,
as aforestated, was withdrawn by him and on May 14, 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court
questioning the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. The learned
Single Judge before whom the said writ petition along with another writ
petition came up for hearing held that the appellant had agreed to the
acquisition of the said land on compensation being paid as aforestated, and
hence it was not open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the said notifica-
tions issued under section 4(1) and section 6 of the said Act. It was held by
him that the withdrawal of the said representation or consent by the appellant
did not in any manner assist him. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant without going into the merits of the aforesaid petition
on the aforesaid basis.
This
judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court which dismissed the
aforesaid writ appeal. It is the correctness of these decisions which is
impugned before us.
In our
view, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh were, with re- spect, clearly in error in dismissing the
respective writ petition and the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground
that the appellant had stated that he was willing to accept the acquisition
provided a lump-sum compensation was awarded to him. The statement of the
appellant amounted in law to no more than an offer in terms of the Contract
Act. The said offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer to whom
it was made. Leave alone, making 118 the award of lump-sum compensation, no
award at all was made by the said officer awarding compensation to the
appellant till November
9, 1979, when the
aforesaid offer was with- drawn by the appellant or even till the writ petition
was filed. Till the offer was accepted there was no contract between the
parties and the appellant was entitled to with- draw his offer. There was
nothing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer, as the appellant was
in no way bound to keep the offer open indefinitely. The writ petition,
therefore, ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of the appellant
having made a statement or consented as afore- stated before the Land
Acquisition Officer.
On the
merits, it is clear that the acquisition of the land is bad in law because the
substance of the notification under section 40) of the said Act was not
published in the locality within forty days of the publication of the notifi- cation
in the Government Gazette. The time-limit of forty days for such publication in
the locality has been made mandatory by section 4(1) of the said Act as amended
by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act. It is well-settled that such
non-compliance renders acquisition bad in law.
In the
result, the appeal succeeds and Rule in the writ petition is made absolute. It
is declared that the acquisi- tion of the aforesaid land of the appellant is
bad in law.
If the
possession has been taken, the same must be returned to the appellant.
The
appeal is allowed as aforestated with costs throughout.
T.N.A.
Appeal Allowed.
Back