2009 Supreme(SC) 1215

Supreme Court Of India
R.V. Raveendran,P.Sathasivam
MANAGER, MATHA NAGAR SCHOOL
Versus
GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Decided On : 07/09/2009

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 and 6 – land acquired on request of land owner – No acquisition proceeding, no consent decree, no final determination of price – Only advance amount paid and possession taken in 1981 – Land cannot be said to be vested in GCDA merely on negotiation and possession – Resultantly, school would also not get valid title despite possession – Acquisition proceedings in 1987 – Not illegal or irregular. (Para 9)

       (b) Land Acquisition Proceedings – Cost of land from allottees – GCDA making it clear and the school agreeing that price indicated in 1981 was provisional subject to land acquisition proceedings – School cannot challenge the final determination of price. (Para 10)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 142 – GCDA claiming 50% profit on compensation and solatium from allottee school – But for delay and laches on part of GCDA, deal would have been concluded in 1981 itself by paying the landlord out of the money received from the school – Acquisition in 1987 would not have been necessitated – Further, GCDA cannot claim profit on solatium – Amount payable by school quantified to Rs. 44,31,226/-. (Para 13 to 15)

       Facts of the case:

       ONE T. V. Joseph was the owner of land measuring a little less than an hectare (97. 91 Ares) adjoining the Matha Nagar Church and school. He wrote a letter dated 4. 8. 1981 requesting the GCDA to purchase his land excluding the portion occupied by his residence and give him the market price therefor. GCDA accepted the proposal and agreed to purchase the said land approximately valued at Rs. 2,59,975/-. Accordingly its Special Tehsildar (LA) took advance possession of the land by paying him Rs. 1,25,000 as advance on account.

       The school which was functioning near the said land requested GCDA to allot them an extent of one and quarter acre out of the said land. The GCDA Board resolved on 28. 2. 1982 to sell 1 acre 24. 541 cents to the school without any kind of development. It directed that the provisional amount to be collected will be subject to final determination and the school should pay 50% of the land cost determined by LAO as additional amount. The School agreed. The GCDA informed the school that 1 acre 24. 541 cents of land was allotted to it subject to a provisional payment of Rs. 310000, the actual value to be determined on completion of land acquisition proceedings. The school paid Rs. 3,10,000/- to GCDA on 7. 5. 1984 and took possession of the land, which was confirmed by issue of a possession certificate by GCDA on 9. 5. 1984.

       GCDA however did not finalize the full price payable to T. V. Joseph who died. His legal representatives/successors started interfering with the possession of the School, apparently on the ground they had not received the full consideration for the land from GCDA.

       The school by letter dated 15. 2. 1985 requested the GCDA to pay the balance sale price to the landowners. That was not done. The land owners filed a suit for getting back the land as the payment was not made. They also filed a writ petition seeking a direction to GCDA to return the land to them and for declaring the Ernakulam town Planning scheme with reference to which the said land was taken, to be inoperative and void. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The writ appeal filed by the landowners was also dismissed and attained finality.

       Even thereafter GCDA did not arrive at any settlement with the land owners.

       On the ground that the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land acquisition Act relating to the acquisition of the land had lapsed in September 1986, fresh proceedings were initiated for acquisition. High Court modified the award by fixing the land value as Rs. 10500 per cent uniformly for both dry and wet lands with interest as awarded by the reference court. The high Court upheld the award of solatium, but denied interest on solatium.

       In the meanwhile, on the basis of the compensation determined by the reference court, GCDA made a demand on the school of Rs. 75,14,097. 52 and called upon the school to pay the same.

       The school filed a writ petition which was dismissed. The said decision was challenged in W. A. which was also dismissed. The said judgment is challenged by the school in CA No. 6599/2002.

       The school filed another writ petition in challenging the acquisition notification dated 11. 8. 1987 under section 4 (1) of the LA Act and all consequential proceedings therefrom, as being null and void. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The said order is challenged by GCDA in CA No. 6600/2002.

       The following questions arise for consideration:

        (i) Whether the land of T. V. Joseph had vested in GCDA and therefore it was unnecessary to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under preliminary notification dated 11. 8. 1987 followed by final declaration dated 16. 8. 1988 and award ? (ii) Whether the school is liable to pay for the land given to it, only at the rate of rs. 4500 per are of dry land and Rs. 2500 per are of wet land? Or whether they are liable to pay the actual acquisition cost incurred by GCDA? (iii)Whether GCDA is entitled to claim from the School, 50% of the amount acquisition cost, as profit in addition to the actual acquisition cost?

       Finding of the Court:

       The acquisition proceedings initiated in 1987 are not illegal or irregular.

       Result:

       Appeal disposed of.