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

2003 Supreme(SC) 913

Supreme Court Of India
S.N.VARIAVA,H.K.SEMA
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
M.L.Vashisht - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 4723 and 4700 of 1997
Decided On : 09/17/2003

Advocates Appeared:
.

Once a Section 4 Notification exempts properties, there can be no acquisition in pursuance of that Notification.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act - Exemption of Evacuee Properties - The court held that once a Section 4 Notification exempted evacuee properties, there could be no acquisition in pursuance of that Notification. Further proceedings taken in the absence of a proper Section 4 Notification cannot be sustained.

Fact of the Case:

A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act exempted government lands and evacuee properties. Declarations under Section 6 were issued later, and awards were passed in 1982/1983. Writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings, and the High Court allowed the petitions on the ground that the Notification under Section 4 exempted evacuee property.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the reasoning of the High Court was correct, and once the Section 4 Notification exempted the properties, there could be no acquisition in pursuance of that Notification. The court dismissed the Civil Appeals.

Issues: Dispute over the acquisition of evacuee properties due to the exemption mentioned in the Section 4 Notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a Section 4 Notification exempted evacuee properties, there could be no acquisition in pursuance of that Notification. Further proceedings taken in the absence of a proper Section 4 Notification cannot be sustained.

Final Decision: The Civil Appeals were dismissed.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- These two matters can be disposed of by this common order. On 13th November, 1959, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. This Notification specifically stated that Government lands and evacuee properties were excluded. Before us it is not disputed, as it could not be, that on the date of issuance of this Notification the property concerned, in these appeals, were evacuee properties.

2. Thereafter, declarations under Section 6 were issued on 23rd December, 1968 and 2nd January, 1969. Awards came to be passed only in 1982/1983. A number of parties, including the respondents filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. These writ petitions came to be disposed of by a judgment dated 14th December, 1995. The writ petitions filed by these respondents were allowed inter alia on the ground that the Notification under Section 4 exempted evacuee property and that therefore acquisition could not take place in respect of these properties. In our view, the reasoning of the High Court is correct. Once Section 4 Notification itself exempted these properties, there can be no acquisition in pursuance of that Notification. Further

proceedings taken in the absence of a proper Section 4 Notification cannot be sustained.

3. It was submitted that respondents (petitioners in the writ petitions) were guilty of gross laches and delay. However, no factual basis in support of this contention, has been placed before this Court. We, therefore, do not propose to go into this aspect in these Appeals.

4. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The Civil Appeals are dismissed.

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