LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, September 15, 2011

LEGAL ISSUES A.P. Industrial Infrastucture Corporation- – In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases


                                         1






                                                   NON-REPORTABLE     


                                                                         




               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA




                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




               CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 304-305 OF 2005 










 A.P. Industrial Infrastructure                                .....Appellant.


   Corpn. Ltd.




                                   Versus




 Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors.                          .....Respondents










                              J U D G M E N T  








    ANIL R. DAVE, J.








   1.     Being   aggrieved   by   the   Judgment   and   Order   dated   23rd  July, 




   2001 in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 and   Review W.A.M.P. No. 




   1822  of  2002  in  Writ  Appeal   No.  1337  of 1999  dated   01st  October, 




   2004   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   of   Andhra   Pradesh   at 




   Hyderabad, these appeals have been filed by the original petitioners-




   respondents herein, whose lands have been acquired by the State for a 




   public purpose.



                                        2






2.        The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell  are as 




under:






          A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 




1894   (in   short   the   `Act')   was   issued   on   27th  August,   1993   for 




acquisition of land admeasuring 101 acres and 33 cents in and around 




Eluru town for a public purpose for setting up an Auto Nagar so as to 




develop the said land for industrial purpose.  On  20th September, 1993 




and 21st  September, 1993, the said notification was published in two 




daily newspapers whereas  on 29th  September, 1993 the substance  of 




the said notification was published in the locality where the land was 




situated.  Looking into the urgency, under the provisions of Section 17 




of   the   Act,   an   inquiry   under   Section   5   A   of   the   Act   was   dispensed 




with.     Thereafter   notification   with   regard   to   the   declaration   under 




Section   6   of   the   Act   was   published   on   8th  October,   1993.     A   Writ 




Petition   No.   5036   of   1994   was   filed   on   18th  September,   1995 




challenging   the   validity   of   the   proceedings   on   the   ground   that   the 




provision of Section 17 of the Act could not have been invoked for 




dispensing  with the enquiry under Section  5A of the Act and in the 




said petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed an interim 




order whereby the authorities were restrained from taking possession 



                                       3






of   the   land   in   question.     Ultimately   the   said   petition   was   finally 




disposed   of  on   18th  September,   1995   whereby   the   declaration   under 




Section   6   had   been   quashed   and   it   was   directed   to   hold   an   enquiry 




under Section 5A of the Act.






        In   pursuance   to   the   above   order   passed   by   the   High   Court, 




necessary enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was made, objections 




were   invited   and   ultimately   it   was  decided   to  acquire   only   54   acres 




and 54 cents land out of the land in question admeasuring 101 acres 




and 33 cents.   Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter 




published on 7th August, 1996.






        After   making   declaration   under   Section   6   of   the   Act,   Award 




was made on 7th January, 1998 and possession of the land in question 




was   taken   on   9th  March,   1998.   After   possession   of   land   in   question 




was   taken   by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   from   the   owners   of   the 




land,   on   16th  July,   1998,   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   handed   over 




possession of the land in question to the present appellant-Corporation 




for a public purpose, for which the land in question had been acquired.






        It is pertinent to note that after declaration under Section 6 of 




the Act made on 7th  August, 1996 and after taking possession of the 



                                      4






land in question on 9th  March, 1998, writ petition No. 32806 of 1998 




was   filed   in   the   High   Court   of   Andhra   Pradesh   challenging   the 




validity of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that 




the   declaration   was   not   made   within   the   period   prescribed   under 




Section 6 of the Act. 






        By an order dated 27th  August, 1999, the learned Single Judge 




dismissed   the   aforesaid   writ   petition   after   recording   the   fact   that 




award was made  on 7th  January, 1998 and possession of the land in 




question had been handed over to the present appellant on 9th  March, 




1998.     Moreover,   the   learned   Single   Judge   also   held   that   the 




declaration   under   Section   6   was   made   within   the   period   stipulated 




under Section 6  of the Act.






        Being   aggrieved   by   the   dismissal   of   the   petition,   the   land 




owners-the present respondents filed Writ Appeal no. 1337 of 1999. 




The said Writ Appeal was allowed by an order dated 23rd  July, 2001 




whereby   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   27th 




August, 1999 was quashed and set aside as it was held by the Division 




Bench of the High Court that the declaration under Section 6 of the 




Act   was   made   beyond   the   period   prescribed   under   Section   6  of   the 




Act.



                                         5






        Being   aggrieved   by   the   said   Judgment   and   Order,   A.P. 




Industrial   Infrastucture   Corporation-   the   present   appellant   filed   a 




Review   petition   being   Review   WAMP   No.   1822   of   2002   in   Writ 




Appeal   No.   1337   of   1999   on   29th  August,   2001   which   was   also 




dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned 




judgment and order on 01st October, 2004.








3.      Being aggrieved  by the above judgment and orders passed by 




the Division Bench of the High Court these appeals have been filed by 




the   A.P.   Industrial   Infrastructure   Corporation   Ltd.,   which   is   an 




undertaking owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for whose 




benefit the land in question had been acquired.








4.      The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant   mainly   made 




two submissions: the first is with regard to the delay caused in filing 




the   petition   or   initiation   of   litigation   challenging   the   validity   of   the 




acquisition proceedings and the Second is with regard to delay caused 




in making the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.   According to 




him   the   declaration   was   made   within   the   period   prescribed   under 




Section 6 of the Act.



                                        6






5.      On the other  hand, the learned counsel  appearing for the land 




owners   supported   the   reasons   given   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the 




Andhra Pradesh High Court and submitted  that the declaration under 




Section 6 was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of 




the Act.








6.      We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   at   great   length.     Several 




judgments were cited by the learned counsel so as to substantiate their 




cases.     In   our   view   there   was   substantial   delay   caused   in   filing   the 




petition   before   the   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   whereby   the   land 




acquisition proceedings had been challenged by the land owners and, 




therefore,   we   would   not   like   to   go   into   other   reasons   and   other 




submissions which pertain to delay causing making declaration under 




Section 6 of the Act.








7.      It is not in dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Act 




was   issued   on   27th  August,   1993   and   it   was   lastly   published,   in   the 




locality where the land is situated, on 29th September, 1993.  We have 




already referred to the earlier litigation and the objections filed by the 




land owners  and decision  with regard  to the land acquisition  officer 




and   the   Government   Authorities   for   not   acquiring   the   entire   land, 



                                          7






which was sought to be acquired at an earlier stage.   Ultimately the 




land admeasuring 54 acres and 54 cents had been acquired out of the 




land   in   question   admeasuring   101   acres   and   33   cents   .     It   is   not   in 




dispute that the Declaration under Section 6 was made on 7th August, 




1996 and an award was made on 7th January, 1998.   Though there is 




some dispute with regard to the fact of taking possession of the land, it 




is an admitted fact that atleast paper possession of the land in question 




was taken on 9th March, 1998 and possession was handed over to the 




appellant on 16th July, 1998.








8.      Thus, it is an admitted fact that declaration under Section 6 of 




the Act was made on 7th August, 1996 and the Award was made on 7th 




January, 1998.   A petition challenging the validity of the declaration 




under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that it was declared beyond 




the   period   specified   under   Section   6   of   the   Act   was   filed   in 




November,   1998.     In   our   opinion,   the   petition   had   been   filed   at   a 




belated   stage.     If   the   land   owners   were   really   aggrieved   by   the 




declaration under Section 6 of the Act, they ought to have challenged 




the same immediately after the declaration under Section 6 was made. 




For the reasons best known to them, they waited for more than two 




years.  Award was made on 7th January, 1998 and even possession was 



                                     8






taken on 9th  March, 1998 and   on 16th  July, 1998, the possession was 




also handed over to the present appellant so that it can use the land in 




question for a public purpose for which it had been acquired. 








9.       The learned Single Judge duly recorded the fact that possession 




of the land in question was taken from the land owners on 9th March, 




1998.








10.      We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for 




challenging   the   declaration   made   under  Section   6  of  the   Act  on   the 




ground of delay.   If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they 




ought   to   have   challenged   the   proceedings   immediately   after 




declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.








11.      This Court has held in several judgments that if the land owners 




are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the 




same atleast before an award is made and the possession of the land in 




question is taken by the government authorities. 








          It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & Another vs. 




State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 4 SCC 695] as under:



                                      9






       "6.  This   Court   has   repeatedly   held   that   a   writ   petition 




       challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed 




       after the possession having been taken, is not maintainable. 




       In  Municipal   Corpn.   of   Greater   Bombay  v.  Industrial 




       Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501 




       where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting 




       of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held: (SCC p. 520, 




       para 29)




               "29. It is thus well-settled law that when there 


               is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and 


               when   all   steps   taken   in   the   acquisition 


               proceedings   have   become   final,   the   Court 


               should be loath to quash the notifications. The 


               High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers 


               under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash 


               the   notification   under   Section   4(1)   and 


               declaration   under   Section   6.   But   it   should   be 


               exercised   taking   all   relevant   factors   into 


               pragmatic   consideration.   When   the   award   was 


               passed   and   possession   was   taken,   the   Court 


               should   not   have   exercised   its   power   to   quash 


               the award which is a material factor to be taken 


               into   consideration   before   exercising   the   power 


               under Article  226. The fact  that no third-party 


               rights   were   created   in   the   case   is   hardly   a 


               ground for interference. The Division Bench of 


               the High Court was not right in interfering with 


               the   discretion   exercised   by   the   learned   Single 


               Judge   dismissing   the   writ   petition   on   the 


               ground of laches."






       Similarly, in the case of  State of Rajasthan & Ors.  vs.  D.R. 




Laxmi   &   Ors.   [(1996)   6   SCC   445]   following   the   decision   of   this 



                                             10






       Court   in   the   case   of     Municipal   Corporation   of   Greater   Bombay 




       (supra) it was held :








               ".... When the award was passed and possession was taken, 




               the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the 




               award   which   is   a   material   factor   to   be   taken   into 




               consideration   before   exercising   the   power   under   Article 




               226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the 




               case,   is   hardly   a   ground   for   interference.     The   Division 




               Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with 




               the   discretion   exercised   by   the   learned   Single   Judge 




               dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. ...."










       To   the   similar   effect   is   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Municipal 




Council, Ahmednagar & Another  vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2 




SCC   48]  wherein   this   Court,   following   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  C. 




Padma     and   Others    vs.  Dy.   Secy.   to   the   Govt.   of   T.N.   and   Others 




[(1997)2 SCC 627]  held: (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55, para 17)






               "17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition 




               can   be   filed   challenging   the   acquisition   notice   or   against 




               any   proceeding   thereunder.   This   has   been   the   consistent 




               view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. 




               Padma  v.  Dy.   Secy.   to   the   Govt.   of   T.N.   [(1997)   2   SCC 




               627]...."



                                           11






12.             Therefore,   we   are   not   referring   to   the   other   judgments, 




which have been cited by the learned counsel on the subject of validity of 




declaration made under Section 6 of he Act for the reasons that we are 




convinced   that   there   was  gross   delay   in   challenging   the   validity   of   the 




acquisition proceedings.






13.                 It is also pertinent to note that according to the appellant, 




possession of the land in question had been handed over to the appellant-




Corporation on 16th July, 1998 and in view of the said fact, this Court had 




granted interim stay in favour of the appellant on 10th January, 2005 and 




an   application   made   by   the   land   owners   for   vacating   the   said   stay   had 




been rejected and it was directed to maintain status quo.  






14.           Looking to the facts of the present case and in the light of the 




law laid down by this Court, which has been referred to hereinabove, we 




firmly believe that the petition filed by the land owners was at a belated 




stage.   For   the   said   reason,   we   do   not   desire   to   interfere   with   the 




acquisition  proceedings, which had been challenged after more than two 




years of declaration under Section 6 of the Act  and on that ground alone 




we feel that appeals deserve to be allowed.



                                   12






15.           The impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division 




Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is quashed and set aside. The 




appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. 










                                         ...............................................J.


                                        (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)




                                                        




                                         ..............................................J.


                                     (ANIL R. DAVE)




New Delhi


September 15, 2011.