advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Sec.4.5 A and 6 -Section 17(1)/17(4) - Land Acquisition Act -Once Company withdraw her intention to take the land acquired ,the very purpose of all procedure becomes infructuous including directions to refund of the amount - High court quashed the notifications as there is no emergency and with out hearing the objections of tenure holders under sec.5 A - directed to refund the amount - Apex court held that as the company by way of affidavit withdraw from taking lands due to non availability of Gas supply , In these circumstances no further question survives for consideration. We need not go into the question raised on behalf of the tenure holders that once the proceedings were vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power, such proceedings could not be revived The direction requiring the Collector to proceed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered infructuous. Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount from the Company and wanted to file objections were liable to refund the same and those who had no objection could seek exemption from refund failing which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears of land revenue also does not survive. Since notification under Section 6 of the Act could no longer be issued at this stage, the question of any tenure holder having or not having objection does not survive for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no purpose when notification under Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued. Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to any other remedy for the Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if any, from the Company in any other proceedings.= CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009] RELIANCE POWER LTD. …….. APPELLANT VERSUS BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ….. RESPONDENTS = 2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41928

Sec.4.5 A and 6 -Section 17(1)/17(4) -  Land Acquisition Act -Once Company withdraw her intention to take the land acquired ,the very purpose of all procedure becomes infructuous including directions to refund of the amount - High court quashed the notifications as there is no emergency and with out hearing the objections of tenure holders under sec.5 A - directed to refund the amount - Apex court held that as the company by way of affidavit withdraw from taking lands due to non availability of Gas supply ,  In   these   circumstances   no   further   question   survives   for consideration.  We need not go into the question raised  on  behalf  of  the tenure holders  that  once  the  proceedings  were  vitiated  by  fraud  and colourable exercise of power, such proceedings  could  not   be  revived  The direction requiring the Collector to  proceed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered  infructuous. Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount  from the Company and wanted to file objections were liable  to  refund  the  same and those who had no objection could  seek  exemption  from  refund  failing which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as  arrears of land revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under  Section  6
of the Act could no longer be issued at this  stage,  the  question  of  any tenure  holder  having  or  not  having  objection  does  not  survive   for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no  purpose when notification under Section 6 of  the  Act  can  no  longer  be  issued. Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.  In view of the above, the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  infructuous without prejudice to any  other  remedy  for  the  Company  to  recover  the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if  any,  from the Company in any other proceedings.=

High court - The  operative  part  of the order is as follows:-
“1.   The notification dated 11th February, 2004 under Section 4 of the  Act
is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and  mentions
the acquisition as an acquisition  for  “public  purpose”.   All  subsequent
proceedings  consequent  to  the  notification  dated  11th  February,  2004
including the notification  under  Section  6  dated  25th  June,  2004  are
quashed.

2.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in
continuation of the notification dated 11th February, 2004 and proceed  with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period
for filing objection.

3.    The notification under Section 4 dated 29th  August,  2006  is  partly
quashed insofar as it invokes Section 17(1)  and  17(4)  of  the  Act.   All
subsequent proceedings consequent to the  notification  dated  29th  August,
2006 including the notification under Section 6 dated  20th  February,  2007
are quashed.

4.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in
continuation of the notification dated 29th August, 2006  and  proceed  with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period
for filing objection.

5.    As a result of quashing of the notification dated 25th June, 2004  and
20th February, 2007, the petitioners are liable to refund  the  compensation
received from the respondents.  However, we provide that it  shall  be  open
for those tenure holders, who have  no  objection  to  the  acquisition,  to
indicate so in their objection to be filed under Section 5A in  which  event
they may seek exemption from the Collector for refunding  the  compensation.
The Collector shall proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of  the
Act of  only  those  tenure  holders  who  have  refunded  the  compensation
received by them.

6.    The Collector may recover the compensation as arrears of land  revenue
from the tenure holders who before the Collector do not in writing  indicate
their no objection with the acquisition.

7.    The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition and  hearing  of  the
objection under Section 5A of the Act shall be entitled to pass such  orders
and take such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to  refund/deposit
of the compensation.

8.    We further direct the Collector to get the  substance  of  this  order
published in all the leading newspapers, both  in  English  and  Hindi,  for
information to all concerned.”=

 But  before  pronouncement  of  the  judgment,  an
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to  surrender  all
rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated  11th
February, 2004 and 29th  August,  2006,  stating  that  on  account  of  the
difficulty in securing domestic natural gas  to  run  the  plant  which  was
sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise  the
land for the purpose for which the same was acquired.=
we  find
that the impugned judgment was rendered
on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been  granted  by  this  Court.   The
State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the  High  Court.
On  this  ground  itself,  proceedings  lapse  as  limitation  for   issuing
notifications under Section 6 of the Act or for making award in  respect  of
proceedings initiated vide notifications of Section  4   of  the  Act  dated
11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.


6.     In   these   circumstances   no   further   question   survives   for
consideration.  We need not go into the question raised  on  behalf  of  the
tenure holders  that  once  the  proceedings  were  vitiated  by  fraud  and
colourable exercise of power, such proceedings  could  not   be  revived  in
view of law laid down in  Vyalikaval  Housebuilding  Coop.  Society  vs.  V.
Chandrappa & Ors.[1], Greater Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  vs.
Devendra Kumar & Ors.[2]. The direction requiring the Collector to  proceed
with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered  infructuous.
 Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount  from
the Company and wanted to file objections were liable  to  refund  the  same
and those who had no objection could  seek  exemption  from  refund  failing
which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as  arrears
of land revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under  Section  6
of the Act could no longer be issued at this  stage,  the  question  of  any
tenure  holder  having  or  not  having  objection  does  not  survive   for
consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no  purpose
when notification under Section 6 of  the  Act  can  no  longer  be  issued.
Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.

7.    In view of the above, the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  infructuous
without prejudice to any  other  remedy  for  the  Company  to  recover  the
amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if  any,  from
the Company in any other proceedings.

2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41928

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014
     [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009]


RELIANCE POWER LTD.                                 …….. APPELLANT

VERSUS

BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.               ….. RESPONDENTS


                                    WITH

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8819-8831 OF 2014
              [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.36616-36628 of 2009]

                                    WITH

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 832-8833 OF 2014
                [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.171-172 of 2010]
                                    WITH

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8834 OF 2014
                  [Arising out of SLP (C) No.1937 of 2010]

                                    WITH

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.8835 OF 2014
                  [Arising out of SLP (C) No.29549 of 2010]

                                    WITH

                      WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010

                                    WITH

                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8836-8839 OF 2014
              [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35239-35242 of 2012]


                               J U D G M E N T



ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1.    Leave granted.   The interlocutory applications are allowed.
2.    These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings  initiated
by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894
[for short ‘the Act’].  By the impugned judgment,  the  High  Court  quashed
the two  notifications  Dated  25th  June,  2004  and  20th  February,  2007
underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications under     Section
4     of     the     Act     dated     11th     February,      2004      and
29th August, 2006 to  the  extent  of  invocation  of  urgency  clause  with
liberty to the State  to  proceed  with  the  hearing  of  objections  under
Section  5A  of  the  Act  and  with  further  direction  as  to  refund  of
compensation already received by the land owners.   The  operative  part  of
the order is as follows:-

“1.   The notification dated 11th February, 2004 under Section 4 of the  Act
is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and  mentions
the acquisition as an acquisition  for  “public  purpose”.   All  subsequent
proceedings  consequent  to  the  notification  dated  11th  February,  2004
including the notification  under  Section  6  dated  25th  June,  2004  are
quashed.

2.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in
continuation of the notification dated 11th February, 2004 and proceed  with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period
for filing objection.

3.    The notification under Section 4 dated 29th  August,  2006  is  partly
quashed insofar as it invokes Section 17(1)  and  17(4)  of  the  Act.   All
subsequent proceedings consequent to the  notification  dated  29th  August,
2006 including the notification under Section 6 dated  20th  February,  2007
are quashed.

4.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in
continuation of the notification dated 29th August, 2006  and  proceed  with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period
for filing objection.

5.    As a result of quashing of the notification dated 25th June, 2004  and
20th February, 2007, the petitioners are liable to refund  the  compensation
received from the respondents.  However, we provide that it  shall  be  open
for those tenure holders, who have  no  objection  to  the  acquisition,  to
indicate so in their objection to be filed under Section 5A in  which  event
they may seek exemption from the Collector for refunding  the  compensation.
The Collector shall proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of  the
Act of  only  those  tenure  holders  who  have  refunded  the  compensation
received by them.

6.    The Collector may recover the compensation as arrears of land  revenue
from the tenure holders who before the Collector do not in writing  indicate
their no objection with the acquisition.

7.    The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition and  hearing  of  the
objection under Section 5A of the Act shall be entitled to pass such  orders
and take such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to  refund/deposit
of the compensation.

8.    We further direct the Collector to get the  substance  of  this  order
published in all the leading newspapers, both  in  English  and  Hindi,  for
information to all concerned.”



3.    Though most of the appeals have been preferred by
M/s Reliance Power Ltd. [formerly known as Reliance Energy Generation  Ltd.]
[for short ‘the Company’] at whose instance the land in question was  sought
to be acquired, against part quashing of acquisition  proceedings,  some  of
the land owners have also appealed to this Court  with  the  grievance  that
having  held  that  the  proceedings  were  initiated  on  the  grounds   of
illegality and fraud, the High Court ought to have quashed  the  acquisition
proceedings in entirety.

4.    The appeals were heard and judgment reserved
on  6th  August,  2014.   But  before  pronouncement  of  the  judgment,  an
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to  surrender  all
rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated  11th
February, 2004 and 29th  August,  2006,  stating  that  on  account  of  the
difficulty in securing domestic natural gas  to  run  the  plant  which  was
sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise  the
land for the purpose for which the same was acquired.


5.    While we note the submissions made on behalf of the Company,  we  find
that the impugned judgment was rendered
on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been  granted  by  this  Court.   The
State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the  High  Court.
On  this  ground  itself,  proceedings  lapse  as  limitation  for   issuing
notifications under Section 6 of the Act or for making award in  respect  of
proceedings initiated vide notifications of Section  4   of  the  Act  dated
11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.


6.     In   these   circumstances   no   further   question   survives   for
consideration.  We need not go into the question raised  on  behalf  of  the
tenure holders  that  once  the  proceedings  were  vitiated  by  fraud  and
colourable exercise of power, such proceedings  could  not   be  revived  in
view of law laid down in  Vyalikaval  Housebuilding  Coop.  Society  vs.  V.
Chandrappa & Ors.[1], Greater Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  vs.
Devendra Kumar & Ors.[2].  The direction requiring the Collector to  proceed
with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered  infructuous.
 Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount  from
the Company and wanted to file objections were liable  to  refund  the  same
and those who had no objection could  seek  exemption  from  refund  failing
which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as  arrears
of land revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under  Section  6
of the Act could no longer be issued at this  stage,  the  question  of  any
tenure  holder  having  or  not  having  objection  does  not  survive   for
consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no  purpose
when notification under Section 6 of  the  Act  can  no  longer  be  issued.
Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.

7.    In view of the above, the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  infructuous
without prejudice to any  other  remedy  for  the  Company  to  recover  the
amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if  any,  from
the Company in any other proceedings.

8.    WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010
      In view of the order passed in  Civil  Appeal  Nos….........  of  2014
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452  of  2009  etc.),
this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.

                                                              …………………………….J.
                                                             [ T.S. THAKUR ]

                                                             ……………………………..J.
                                                             [ C. NAGAPPAN ]

                                                            ………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI                             [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
September  16, 2014

ITEM NO.1E-For Judgment   COURT NO.14         SECTION XI

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  36425-36452/2009

RELIANCE POWER LTD.FORM.R.E.GENERAN.LTD.     Petitioner(s)

                                VERSUS

BABU SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC.                    Respondent(s)

WITH
SLP(C) No. 36616-36628/2009
 SLP(C) No. 171-172/2010
 W.P.(C) No. 304/2010
 SLP(C) No. 1937/2010
 SLP(C) No. 29549/2010
 SLP(C) No. 35239-35242/2012

Date : 16/09/2014 These petitions were called on for JUDGMENT today.


For Petitioner(s)
                     Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.

                     Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
                     Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
                     Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.
                     Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
                           Mr. A.V. Balan, Adv.
                           Mr. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.

                           Dr. Surat Singh, Adv.
                           Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Adv.
                           Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.

                     Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.

                     Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.
                     Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.
                           Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,Adv.
                           Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.


        Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel  pronounced  the  judgment  of
the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur,  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice
C. Nagappan and His Lordship.
            Leave granted.
            The appeals are disposed of  as  infructuous  in  terms  of  the
signed order.
            Writ Petition (C) No.304 of 2010 is also disposed  of  in  terms
of the signed order.


    (VINOD KUMAR)                               (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
      COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER
            (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
-----------------------
[1]    (2007) 9 SCC 304
[2]    (2011) 12 SCC 375

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.