State of
Haryana & Ors Vs. Dewan Singh & Ors
[1995] INSC 635 (6 November 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Kirpal B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 675 1996 SCC (7) 394 JT 1995 (8) 348 1995 SCALE (6)480
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
The
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short,
"the Act"] was furnished on January 22, 1981. Notices were given under Section 9
of the Act. The Collector after conducting an enquiry made an award on April 19, 1984 and allegedly took possession of
the land on the even date. The respondents assert that they are in possession.
The respondents filed the writ petition on May 13, 1985 challenging the
notification under Section 4 [1] of the Act on the ground that dispensing with
an enquiry under Section 5-A exercising power under Section 17 [4] of the Act
was bad in law as there was no urgency and the award was, on the face of the
case, valid in law. The High Court by order dated May 27, 1985 allowed the writ petition following Dharam Singh vs. State
of Haryana [C.W.P. No. 2891 of 1984 decided on
9th November, 1984]. Thus this appeal by special
leave.
It is
contended by the appellant that after the award had been made, the respondents
received compensation and also sought reference under Section 18. The Land
Acquisition Officer was competent to make the award within two years under
Section 11-A of the Act after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The award came to
be made within that period. So the proceedings under Section 4 and 6 shall not
stand lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act.
It is
contended for the respondents that enquiry under Setion 5-A is a valuable right
and a minimum right by which the owner is entitled to show that the land is not
fit to be used for public purpose. It would be open to show that some other
land would be more suitable for public purpose, viz., land for market
committee. Exercising the power under Section 17 [4] dispensing with the
enquiry conducted under Section 5-A is clearly illegal. Though there was delay
on the part of the respondents in challenging the notification, delay does not
mitigate to take away the valuable right of approaching the High Court. The
order of the High Court in Dharam Singh's case [supra] was not challenged. It
is open to the appellants to canvass the correctness of the award on that
premise, though the award had become final.
The
question for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in
interfering with the award dated April 19,1984 made by the Collector and the notification under Section 4
[1]. It is seen that the notification under Section 4 [1] and the declaration
were not challenged till May
13, 1985 while the
award came to be made on April
13, 1984. The
respondents in fact received the amount under protest but that fact was not
brought to the notice of the High Court. It is also not in dispute that at that
point of time an application for reference under Section 18 was made within the
limitation provided therein. It would appear that after the writ petition was
allowed the appliation was withdrawn. After the award was made, the Court would
not be justified to quash the notifcation under Section 4 [1] and declaration
under Section 6 for dispending with the enquiry under Setion 5-A.
In
these circumstances, we think that the appropriate course would be to sustain
the notification under Section 4 [1] and the declaration under Section 6 and
the award made under Section 11. It would be open to the respondents to make an
application under Section 18 within 30 days from to- day to the Collector for
reference to Civil Court for determining the compensation.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court under appeal
is set aside. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to
costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
