SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 735

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
P. CHINNANNA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal Nos. 1503 and 1504 of 1994{From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. A. Nos. 1389 of 1991 and 608 of 1993}, decided on August 8, 1994
Advocates appeared
D. Prakash Reddy and Ms Rani Chhabra, Advocates, for the Appellants;
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General (T.V.S. Narasimhachari, Nikhil Nayyar and Ms Promila Choudhary, Advocates, with him) for the Respondents.

Advocates:
D.PRAKASH REDDY, NIKHIL NAYAR, Promila Chaudhary, RANI CHHABRA, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.R.REDDY

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 - Sub-section (4) of Sections 17, 5-A, 17, 9(1) and 6(1) - Land and restored the ownership - Possession of the land - Regulated Market a request to the State Government to acquire a compact block of 6 acres and 29 guntas of land in Survey Nos. needed for extension of its existing Cotton Market Yard - State Government which regarded the said request to acquire land to be a case involving urgency, invoked its power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of L.A. Act and made an order directing provisions of Section 5-A of L.A. Act shall not got published in the State Gazette a notification under Section 4(1) of L.A. Act and a declaration under Section 6(1) thereof, in respect of said land was required under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of L.A. Act – Held, Court concerned to examine such fresh ground - Relation to acquisition proceeding involving acquisition of land for public purposes - Court concerned must be averse to entertain writ petitions involving challenge to such acquisition there is avoidable delay or laches since such acquisition, if set aside, would not only involve enormous loss of public money but also cause undue delay in carrying out projects meant for general public good - When a fresh ground of attack to acquisition proceedings, even if it involves purely a question of law, its entertainment cannot be governed by a principle different from that which governs entertainment of writ petitions before the High Court or proceedings arising therefrom before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution - Civil appeals are dismissed

Judgment

VENKATACHALA, J.- These are the appeals in which special leave is granted under Article 136 of the Constitution. They are directed against the common judgment dated 3-8-1993 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which Writ Appeal Nos. 1389 of 1991 and 608 of 1993 filed against the orders dated 10-3-1989 and 30-3-1989 of a learned Single Judge of the same court in Writ Petition Nos. 13439 of 1986 and 7689 of 1989 respectively refusing to quash acquisition of certain land acquired for a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the L.A. Act), are dismissed.

2. That on 23-4-1976 Bhainsa Regulated Market Samiti made a request to the State Government to acquire a compact block of 6 acres and 29 guntas of land in Survey Nos. 342/1A, 342/1B and 343 of Bhainsa Village needed for extension of its existing Cotton Market Yard. That on 6-7-1977 the State Government which regarded the said request to acquire land, to be a case involving urgency, invoked its power under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act and made an order directing that the provisions of Section 5-A of the L.A. Act shall not apply. Further, that on 21-7-1977, it got published in the State Gazette a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act and a declaration under Section 6(1) thereof, in respect of the said land, as was required under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act. Thereafter, the District Collector who got published the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the L.A. Act took possession of the said acquired land on 10-7-1978 as provided for in sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act. Such taking of possession made the said land vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances as provided for in the said sub-section itself. Thereupon, the District Collector gave possession of the said acquired land to the Bhainsa Regulated Market Samiti for whom it had been acquired. When the said 6 acres and 29 guntas of land, had been so acquired and its possession was taken by the Collector resulting in its vesting in the State, the appellants in the present appeals filed WP Nos. 8433 of 1978 and 3416 of 1978 in the High Court of Andhra, Pradesh and sought the quashing of Section 4(1) notification and 6(1) declaration insofar as they related to 1 acre 29 guntas of land claimed to have been purchased by them in April 1977.

WP No. 3416 of 1978 was disposed of by the High Court by a judgment dated 23-8-1982 which read thus:

"In this writ petition the acquisition of Ac. 1-29 guntas in S. No. 342/1A of Bhainsa Village is challenged by the writ petitioners. This land is sought to be acquired for the purpose of extention of agriculture market yard of that place. The gazette notification was made under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 21-1-1977 and in view of the alleged urgency, Section 5-A enquiry has been dispensed with. That is to say, possession has been taken nearly a year after Section 4(1) notification was published. This circumstances is alone sufficient to show that the invoking of the emergency clauses to dispense with Section 5-A enquiry is done mechanically.

In these circumstances, the order made on 21-7-1977 dispensing with Section 5-A enquiry is set aside and there will be a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Respondent 3 to give notice to the petitioners and hold Section 5-A enquiry and the proceedings will commence from that point.

The writ petition is allowed as indicated above, but in the circumstances without costs."

Again Writ Petition No. 8433 of 1978 was disposed of on the same date by the High Court by a judgment which reads thus:

"No orders are necessary."

3. An enquiry under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act appears to have been held pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3416 of 1978 and a decision taken by the State Government, on the basis of the report of the enquiry to the effect that the land concerned shall be acquired. Therea


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top