Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Versus
S.U.T.N.I Sangam & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3874 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5763, 5764, 5765 5766 AND 5767 OF 2006 AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4793-4794 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12682-12683 of 2007)
Decided on : 29-07-2009
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) - Land case - Land acquisition proceedings for preparation of awards were initiated during the period awards were made - A large number of landholders being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer received the same without protest - Held, It is a qualification of the Page 4544 preceding enactment which is expressed in terms too general to be quite accurate - As a general rule, a proviso is added to an enactment to qualify or create an exception to what is in the enactment and ordinarily, a proviso is not interpreted as stating a general rule - "If the language of the enacting part of the statute does not contain the provisions which are said to occur in it you cannot derive these provisions by implication from a proviso - Normally, a proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a proviso - It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other - Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
S.B. Sinha, J.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
On the requisition of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the `SAIL) for establishment of a steel plant at Salem commonly known as Salem Steel Plant, 3651 acres of land was acquired wherefor a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Act) was issued in the year 1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was published in 1969.
Land acquisition proceedings for preparation of awards were initiated in 1971 during the period 1971 to 1975. 305 awards were made. A large number of landholders being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer received the same without protest.
Some of the land owners, however, at the time of passing of the award being not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded in their favour not only received the amount under protest but also filed applications for reference to the Land Acquisition Court in terms of Section 18 of the Act pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof references to the Civil Court were made. Admittedly enhanced amount of compensation, as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge, have also been paid.
Some of the land owners, however, filed applications for reference although they had not accepted the amount of compensation with protest which was rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer. Some of the awardees filed their applications for making reference after the period prescribed therefor. Those applications were also rejected.
It is stated that most of the claim petitions were determined upto 1979. Some of the land owners, however, formed an association SUTNI Sangam {(hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as `the Association) for protecting the legal rights of the agriculturists whose lands were sought to be acquired.
A gist of the circular letter directing reference of cases for the purpose of enhancement of compensation reads as under :
"POINT I
Awardees who received the compensation amount with protest and submitted their applications requesting a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after the expiry of the stipulated time.
POINT II
Awardees who received the compensation amount without protest but submitted applications requesting reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
POINT III
Awardees who received the compensation amount without protest but failed to submit applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act."
A clarificatory order, however, was issued by the said authority on or about 5.1.1983 stating that the earlier instructions issued by the Government were not intended to override the provisions of the said Act and they should be meticulously followed and, thus, if a person had accepted the award without protest, he would lose his right to claim any reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act.
Respondent Association thereafter filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras marked as Writ Petition No.55144 of 1983 praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :
"... a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to give effect to the instructions of the 2nd Respondent contained in letter No. D.Dis.II/3748/80 dated 21.5.1981 and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and consequently direct Respondents 4 to 8 to refer the cases of the persons included in Annexures I, II, III and IV herein to a Civil Court for grant of enhanced compensation in respect of the lands acquired from them for the purpose of the Salem Steel Project,..."
In the said writ proceedings, the State Government filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that in most of the
Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1965 SC 1728
A.N. Sehgal and Ors. v. Raje Ram Sheoram and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 1406
Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and Ors AIR 1991 SC 1538
Kerala State Housing Board and Ors. v. Ramapriya Hotels (P) Ltd. and Ors. 1994 (5) SCC 672
Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & Anr. v. Shah Manilal Chandulal & ors. 1996 (9) SCC 414
State of Karnataka v. Laxuman 2005 (8) SCC 709
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another (1962) 1 SCR 676
State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum & Anr. (1964) 1 SCR 971
State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika AIR 1966 SC 1313
State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28 : AIR 1970 SC 214
Land Acquisition officer v. Shivabai and Others (1997) 9 SCC 710
Mirza Majid Hussain v. State of M.P. and Another (1995) 2 SCC 422
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia (2008) 3 SCC 279
Ajit Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & ors. (1994) 4 SCC 67
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409
H.M. Kelogirao & ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & ors. (1997) 7 SCC 722
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corpn. v. Supai Munda & ors. (2004) 12 SCC 306
Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer
Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 229
State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and Ors.(2005) 4 SCC 264
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 353
Nagar Palika Nigam v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Ors. 2008 AIR SCW 7114
Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v. Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha AIR 1961 SC 1596
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.