SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI, V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5428 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3009/2012)
Decided On : 11-07-2013
Result: Appeal dismissed as barred by time.
JUDGMENT
G. S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 30.7.2010 read with order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1517/2010 for issue of a mandamus to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to hand over vacant possession of final Plot bearing No.1088, Town Planning Scheme-IV (City) (Mahim) situated at Kashinath Dhuruwadi, Standard Mill Lane, Rajabhau Desai Marg, New Prabhadevi, Mumbai and for restraining respondent No.5 from carrying out further development on that plot or creating third party rights, the appellant has sought intervention of this Court.
3. By Notification dated 24.9.1973 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) the Government of Maharashtra proposed the acquisition of four plots, Town Planning Scheme as described hereinabove for Posts and Telegraph Offices. After considering the report submitted by the Collector under Section 5A(2), the State Government issued declaration dated 7.11.1975 under Section 6(1) of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.2) passed award dated 31.3.1982 and fixed market value of Plot Nos. 1087 and 1088 as Rs.14,14,282/- and Rs.13,29,897/-, respectively. Assistant Engineer (Phone) (L.A., Mumbai Telephones) deposited the amount of compensation on 9.8.1982.
4. Since some portions of the acquired land were occupied by slum dwellers, respondent No.2 sent letters dated 10.2.1983 and 22.3.1983 to the officers of the Bombay Telephones to rehabilitate the hutment dwellers or pay rehabilitation compensation and deposit the establishment and service charges. Between 9.6.1983 and 3.8.1992 the officers of Bombay Telephones and Posts and Telegraph Department exchanged correspondence inter se and sent communications to Bombay Housing and Area Development Board, Department of Housing and Special Assistance, Government of Maharashtra and other functionaries of the State Government for delivery of possession of the two plots but did not get desired response apparently because more and more persons had encroached and occupied the acquired land. After about 6 years, Deputy General Manager (Planning), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., sent letter dated 23.6.1998 to respondent No.2 to either hand over vacant possession of the two plots or refund the amount of compensation with interest. That letter reads as under:
“MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED MUMBAI
O/o Dy. General Manager (Planning)
3rd Flr, Telephone House,
V.S. Marg, Dadar (West),
Mumbai-400 028,
No. PELA-1-166/98-99 Date: 23/6/98
To,
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Old Custom House, 1st floor,
Fort, Mumbai
Sub: Acquisition of Plot No. 1087 and 1088 in TPS-IV of Mahim, Prabhadevi.
Sir,
Award for the above plot No. 1087 and 1088 declared on 1.6.1979 and 31.3.1982 respectively. Accordingly, this department paid compensation amount of Rs. 14,14,282/- on 26.7.79 and Rs. 13,29,897/- on 30.3.82 totaling to Rs. 27.65 lakhs including establishment charges. Inspite of voluminous correspondences and frequent visuals and meetings with you to get the vacant possession of the plots, the plot is not yet made over to MTNL. At present plot is fully encroached and you are not in a position to give vacant possession of the said plots.
It is once again requested to hand over the vacant possession within three months, failing which you are requested to refund the compensation paid by us with interest.
Sd/-
Dy. General Manager (Plg.)
MTNL, Mumbai”
(underlining is ours)
5. For the next about 8 years the officers of Bombay Telephones, Posts and Telegraph Department and the appellant are not shown to have sent any communication to the functionaries of the State Government including respondent No.2 in the matter of delivery of possession of the acquired land. They woke up from slumber in 2006. Between 1.1.2006 and 4.8.2006, about 20 communications were sent to respondent No.2 and others to deliver possession of Plot No.1088. In those communications, no mentio
Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114.
Oswal Fats and Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.) (2010) 4 SCC 728: 2010(2) Supreme 726.
Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563.
Hari Narain v. Badri Das (1964) 2 SCR 203.
Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal (1978) 2 SCC 209-Referred.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai AIR 1964 SC 1006-Relied.
State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi (2009) 13 SCC 192-Distinguished.
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.