eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 107 of 19710/21/2011notification under Section 4(1) of the Act which was disposed of on 16/3/1982, directing the Government toconsider the representation of the land owners for exclusion of the land from acquisition. The representation wasrejected on 03/6/1987. Then Writ Petition No.435/1988 was filed again challenging the notifications. In the abovebackground of facts following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 4 which is quoted below:-"4. It is already seen that the possession having already been taken on April 12, 1976 and vested in theGovernment free from all encumbrances and many others having accepted the award and some had received thecompensation under protest, the High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering with the acquisition. We haveseen the plan produced before us which would indicate that the land acquired comprises the establishment ofOfficers' building and 2000 electronic exchange. Under theses circumstances, it would be highly inconvenient toexclude this land from acquisition. The purpose of enquiry under Section 5A is only to show that any otherconvenient and suitable land would be available other than the land sought to be acquired, or there is no publicpurpose. This issue would become an academic once the construction started and was in progress. The ratio inthe case of Oxford English School v. Govt. of T.N. has no application to the facts of these appeals. In that case,neither the award was made before the amendment act has come into force nor was possession taken. In thesecircumstances, this Court held that declaration under Section 6 was invalid and direction given by the High Courtto conduct enquiry under Section 5A, after three years had expired, is illegal. Section 4(1) also stood lapsed byoperation of proviso to Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio is clearly inapplicable to the facts of theseappeals."Another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is the judgment of the Apex Court inSenjeevanagar Medical & Health Employees' Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd Abdul Wahab & Ors,(1996) 3 SCC 600.In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court held that the property under acquisition having vested in the State, exerciseof power to quash notification under Section 4 (1) and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act wouldlead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with the acquisition and quashed thenotification and declaration under Sections 4 and 6 respetively. Following was laid down in paragraph 12 which isquoted below:-"12. That apart, as facts disclose, the award was made on November 24, 1980 and the writ petition was filed onAugust 9, 1982. It is not in dispute that compensation was deposited in the court of the Subordinate Judge. lt isasserted by the appellant- Society that possession of the land was delivered to it and the land had been dividedand allotted to its members for construction of houses and that construction of some houses had beencommenced by the date the writ petition was filed. It would be obvious that the question of division of theproperties among its members and allotment of the respective plots to them would arise only after the LandAcquisition Officer had taken possession of the acquired land and handed it over to the appellant-Society. Byoperation of Section 16 the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In Satendra Prasad Jain &Ors. v. State of U.P. the question arose: whether notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6get lapsed if the award is not made within two years as envisaged under Section 11A? A Bench of three Judgeshad held that once possession was taken and the land vested in the Government, title to the land so vested in theState is subject only to determination of compensation and to pay the same to the owner. Divesting the title to theland statutorily vested in the Government and reverting the same to the owner is not contemplated under the Act.Only Section 48(1) gives power to withdrew from acquisition that too before possession is taken. That questiondid not arise in this case. The property under acquisition having been vested in the appellants, in the absence ofany power under the Act to have the title of the appellants divested except by exercise of the power under Section48(1), valid title cannot be defeated. The exercise of the power to quash the notification under Section 4(1) andthe declaration under Section 6 would lead to incongruity. Therefore, the High Court under those circumstanceswould not have interfered with the acquisition and quashed the notification and declaration under Sections 4 and6 respectively. Considered from either perspective, we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in allowingthe writ appeal."To the same effect there is another judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. D.R. Laxmi &Ors, (1996) 6 SCC 445. This is a three judge judgment. The Apex Court in the said case held that when the awardwas passed and the possession was taken the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award.Following was laid down in paragraph 9 which is quoted below:-"9. Recently, another Bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development& Investment Co. (P) Ltd. re-examined the entire case law and held that once the land was vested in the State,the Court was not justified in interfering with the notification published under appropriate provisions of the Act.Delay in challenging the notification was fatal and writ petition entails with dismissal on grounds of latches. It is