IMPORTANT POINT
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 loathe to quash the notification.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 6 and 11-Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act-Section 126(2)-Award passed u/s 11-Notification u/s 6 r/ws 126(2)-Writ petition after a delay of 4 years-Whether High Court was right in issuing the writ after long lapse of time ?-(No)-When there is inordinate delay in filing writ petition and when all steps taken in acquisition proceedings have become final, Court should be loathe to quash notifications.
       Held : 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 loathe 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 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. (Para 20)
       The respondent-writ petitioners can be said to have waived their objections to the acquisition on the ground of extinction of public purpose by their own inaction, lethargy and indolent conduct. The division bench of the High Court had taken the view that because of their inaction no vested rights of third parties are created. That finding is obviously incorrect for the simple reason that because of the indolent conduct of the writ petitioners land got acquired, award was passed, compensation was handed over to various claimants including the landlord. Reference applications came to be filed for larger compensation by claimants including writ petitioners themselves. The acquired land got vested in the State Govt. and the Municipal Corporation free from all encumbrances as enjoined by Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus right to get more compensation got vested in diverse claimants by passing of the award, as well as vested right was created in favour of the Bombay Municipal Corporation by virtue of the vesting of the land in the State Government for being handed over to the Corporation. All these events could not be wished away by observing that no third party rights were created by them. The writ petition came to be filed after all these events had taken place. Such a writ petition was clearly still borne due to gross delay and laches. (Para 24)
       (ii) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act-Section 126(2) -Proposal for acquisition of land for a specified public purpose-Land reserved for a public purpose for extension of Water Sewage Plant-Subsequently land earmarked for residential purpose for its employees -Whether this change of user will vitiate the acquisition proceeding ?-(No, as per K. Ramaswamy, J.)-(Yes, as per S. B. Majmudar, J-Planning Authority would be required to issue a fresh proposal u/s 126(1) r/ws 40(3)(e) and 116 of the MRTP Act) (Conflicting opinions).
       Held : As per K. Ramaswamy, J.- The acquisition validly made does not become invalid by change of the user or change of the user in the Scheme as per the approved plan. It is seen that the land in Block H which was intended to be acquired for original public purpose, namely, the construction of Sewage Purification Plant, though was shifted to Block A , the land was earmarked for residential, commercial-cum-residential purposes or partly for residential purpose etc. It is the case of the appellant that the Corporation intends to use the land acquired for construction of the staff quarters for its employees. It is true that there was no specific plan as such placed on the record, but so long as the land is used by the Corporation for any designated public purpose, namely, residential-cum-commercial purpose for its employees, the later public purpose remains to be valid public purpose in the light of the change of the user of the land as per the revised approved plan. It is true that in the original scheme the residential quarters for the staff working in Sewage Purification Plant were intended to be constructed and the same purpose is sought to be served by the acquisition of the land by using the land in Block A . Nonetheless the acquired land could be used by the Corporation for residential-cum-commercial purpose for its employees other than those working in the Sewage Purification Plant. It would not, therefore, be necessary that the original public purpose should continue to exist till the award was made and possession taken. Nor is it the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to see whether the public purpose continues to subsist. The award and possession taken do not become invalid or ultra vires the power of Land Acquisition Officer. (Para 18)
       As per S.B. Majmudar, J. (dissenting)-Even though the proposal under Section 126(1) is for acquisition of land for a specified public purpose, if the planning authority wants to acquire the land subsequently for any other public purpose earmarked in the modified scheme as has happened in the present case that is if the appellant Corporation which had initially proposed to acquire the land for extension of sewerage treatment plant wanted subsequently to acquire the same land for its staff quarters then such a purpose must be specifically indicated in the plan meaning thereby that the land must be shown to be reserved for the staff quarters of the Corporation and then the Special Planning Authority which had become the appropriate planning authority, i.e., B.M.R.D.A. would be required to issue a fresh proposal under Section 126(1) read with Section 40(3)(e) and Section 116 of the M.R.T.P. Act and follow the gamut thereafter. So long as that was not done the earlier proposal under Section 126(1) and the consequential notification by the State Government under Section 126(2) which had lost their efficacy could not be revitalised. (Para 23)
       (iii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4 and 6-Notification u/s 4-Declaration u/s 6-Whether a tenant can challenge notification and declaration ?-(No, when landlord himself had accepted the award and received compensation) (as per K. Ramaswami, J.)-(Yes, as per S.B. Majmudar, J.) (Conflicting opinions).
       Held : As per K. Ramaswamy, J.- It is equally settled law that a tenant cannot challenge the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act when the landlord himself had accepted the award and received compensation. (Para 18)
       As per S.B. Majmudar, J.-I also do not subscribe to the general observation that a sitting tenant of the land which comes to be subjected to acquisition proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in no case can challenge the said acquisition proceedings. In appropriate cases such a challenge can be levelled by the concerned tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land. (Para 23)
       (iv) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act-Section 126(2)-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Acquisition of land u/s 126(2)-Land sought to be acquired must have a direct connection with its specification, earmarking or reservation for a specified legal purpose in development plan itself-If this nexus or linkage between specification of public purpose is snapped off prior to completion of acquisition proceeding-Acquisition u/s 126 would become incompetent -General principle of acquisition under Land Acquisition Act cannot be applied for deciding legality of such statutory acquisition. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1988 in Appeal No. 120 of 1988 of the Bombay High Court reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge and quashing the award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) and the notification dated 6th September 1972 issued under Section 6 of the Act read with Section 126(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (for short, the MRTP Act ) as inoperative. It was also held that the land in question could not be acquired under the Act. It was also further declared that all steps taken for taking possession and vesting of plot of land bearing CS No. 503, Dharavi Division, Bombay, in pursuance of the said award were illegal.

2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be noted at the outset. On 6th January 1967 a draft development plan for G Ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation was sanctioned by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of its powers under Section 31 sub-section (1) of the MRTP Act. The said draft development plan was earlier prepared by the then planning authority, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Bombay as per the provisions found in Chapter III of the MRTP Act dealing with the preparation, submission and sanction to development plan. It is not in dispute between the parties that necessary gamut enjoined by Sections 21 to 30 of the MRTP Act was gone through by the then planning authority functioning under the Act and that ultimately culminated into the sanctioned draft development plan by the State Government under Section 31(1) of the MRTP Act as aforesaid. This sanctioned draft development plan for G Ward of the Municipal Corporation of Bombay came into force on 7th February, 1967. It is also not in dispute between the parties that city survey No. 503 Dharavi with which we are concerned in the present proceedings formed part of the said Ward G and, therefore, was naturally covered by the aforesaid sanctioned development plan. The said city survey plot No. 503 Dharavi is a large piece of land owned by the 6th respondent, the Provident Investment Co. Ltd. which belongs to the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Some portion of the said land, to be precise an area admeasuring 20,397 sq. yds. was leased out by the 5th respondent to 1st respondent herein. It was using the same for the business of manufacture of art silk and rayon textiles and processing of textiles. The appellant, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay which was original 3rd respondent in the writ petition has a Sewage Purification Plant at Dharavi. With the increase in the population and the area under control of the appellant-Corporation it became necessary to extend the Dharavi Sewage Purification Works. In the year 1963, it was decided at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the appellant-Corporation to acquire City Survey No. 503. The said requisite proposal was taken note of in the aforesaid Development Plan prepared under the MRTP Act. In the said plan, City Survey No. 503 was designated and shown as reserved for extension of the Dharavi Sewage Purification Works. As noted above, the said plan came into force w.e.f. February 7, 1967. On the basis of the aforesaid reservation of this land in the said plan for the extension of Dharavi Sewage Purification Works belonging to the appellant-Corporation, the appellant-Corporation, being the then planning authority sought to acquire the said land for the purpose of extension of Dharavi Sewage Purification Plant as per Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act and the State Government of Maharashtra being satisfied that the land specified in the application was needed for the public purpose therein specified, issued the requisite notification dated July 6, 1972 under Section 126(2) of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the Act. The said provisions of Section 126 read as under :

"126.(1) When after the public

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1398

IMPORTANT POINT 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 loathe to quash the notification.

Cases Referred (15)

IMPORTANT POINT
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 loathe to quash the notification.