IMPORTANT POINTS
Being expropriatory legislation, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be construed strictly.
If acquisition proceedings are not held valid, notifications u/s 4 and 6 should simply be quashed. Further directions as to filing of objections etc. neither proper nor warranted.
Quashing of acquisition proceedings in case of some land owners does not mean that entire acquisition has been quashed. It has to be expressed explicitly.
Land owners acquiescing to acquisition proceedings of 2001, allowing it to attain finality. Challenging the same in 2008 after decision of High Court in some cases, Not permissible.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 6 and 17 r/w Articles 19(1)(f) and 300A, Constitution of India – State issuing notification u/s 4 as also u/s 17 simultaneously – Not paying 80% compensation as mandated – Notification u/s 6 issued after expiry of statutory period of one year – Notification rightly quashed by High Court. (Para 6)
       (2002) 3 SCC 533; (2011) 12 SCC 375; (1955) 1 SCR 117; (2013) 10 SCC 136; (1999) 3 SCC 422; (1875) 1 Ch D 426; AIR 1936 PC 253; AIR 1954 SC 322; AIR 1964 SC 358; (2014) 8 SCC 425 – Relied upon
       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 and section 4, land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court quashing notification u/s 4 – Issuing further directions – Not proper – Ought to simply quash the notification in personam, or if circumstances so commanded, in rem – Further directions as to filing of objections etc. unwarranted. (Para 7)
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – High Court while quashing declaration u/s 4 permitting petitioners to file objections u/s 5A – Time for filing objections would start from date of High Court order – Creating a piquant position – Implying that it would also be the deemed date of notification u/s 4 – Notification u/s 6 ought to be published within one year. (Para 7)
       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11A – Requirement of passing award within two years of declaration u/s 6 – Original declaration u/s 4 and notification u/s 6 published in 2001 – High Court quashing the proceeding in 2004 and permitting the petitioners to file objections – State ought to have challenged the judgment – Instead it treated entire acquisition proceedings as quashed – Quashing of acquisition proceedings in case of some land owners does not mean that entire acquisition has been quashed – It has to be explicitly expressed – State considering no need to issue fresh notifications – Continuing with the proceeding – Rejecting the objections and passing award in 2006, within two years of High Court order – Computing the compensation on rate of 2001 – Compensation not paid – High Court holding violation of section 11A and quashing the entire acquisition proceeding. (Para 8, 9)
       (1993) 4 SCC 255; (1999) 7 SCC 44; (2000) 7 SCC 296; Civil Appeal Nos. 736-737 of 2008; (2012) 12 SCC 797 – Relied upon
       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 6 and 11A – Original notification u/s 4, 17 and 6 issued in 2001 – High Court quashing the same in 2004 – Permitting petitioners to file objections – Objections rejected and declaration u/s 6 issued – Award u/s 11A passed in time in 2006 – However, compensation computed as on date of original declaration u/s 4, i.e., 2001 – Had the High Court in 2004 simply quashed the notification without further direction as it ought to do, State would have to issue fresh declaration u/s 4 and that would have been the date for computation of award – High Court rightly rejected the contention. (Para 11)
       (2002) 3 SCC 533 – Relied upon
       (f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4, 6 and 11A r/w Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Appellants acquiescing to acquisition proceedings of 2001 – Challenging the same in 2008 after decision of High Court in some cases – That decision did not explicitly make it a decision in rem – Not applicable to appellants – Further, all requirements of section 24 of 2013 Act fulfilled – Not entitled to challenge the acquisition. (Para 13)
       Facts of the case:
       The State of Haryana had issued a Notification on 18.1.2001 to acquire 12.18 acres of land falling in Village Khera Markanda and 11.64 acres of land falling in Village Ratgal as mentioned in the Schedule thereto for the construction of a fell-storm sewer, a sewage-treatment plant and a crematorium (Shamshan Ghat) at Kurukshetra. Simultaneous with the issuance of this Notification, the Appellant State had also invoked the urgency provisions.
       A Declaration under Section 6 was issued the very next day, i.e. 19.1.2001.
       The Respondents/Landowners filed C.W.P. challenging the Section 4 Notification dated 18.1.2001 and the Section 6 Declaration dated 19.1.2001.
       By the time interim orders came to be passed in the Writ Petitions by the Division Bench on 7.2.2002, the one year period prescribed in the statute to advance from Notification to Declaration stage had already elapsed. It is also relevant to record that notwithstanding the interim order dated 7.2.2002, the Appellant State passed an Award on the next day, namely 8.2.2002
       The High Court quashed the notification u/s 6. However, the Division Bench simultaneously permitted the petitioners before it to file Section 5A objections within thirty days and permitted the Appellant State to issue a fresh Section 6 Declaration in the event that it found no substance in those objections.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court ought to have simply quashed the declaration u/s 4 and notification u/s 6. Firther direction was unwarranted.
       Result: C.A. Nos. 318 OF 2011 and 459-460 of 2011 dismissed. C.A. Nos. 461-462 of 2011 allowed.

Judgment

Vikramajit Sen, J.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 318 OF 2011

1. This Appeal questions the correctness of the Judgment dated 12.3.2008 delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006, on the basis of which the High Court had also allowed C.W.P. No. 1465 of 2006, C.W.P. No. 2166 of 2007, C.W.P. No. 7066 of 2008 and C.W.P. No. 7353 of 2008. Civil Appeal No. 318 of 2011 and Civil Appeal Nos. 459-462 of 2011 respectively assail these Judgments. It merits to mention that the connected Civil Appeal No. 535 of 2011 was, on the unrefuted submission made by the learned counsel for the Respondents/Landowners in that Appeal, dismissed as infructuous by an Order dated 11.3.2015 of this Court; the submission was that the Public Notice dated 8.4.2010 had released the subject land from acquisition.

2. The State of Haryana had issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (‘L.A. Act’ for brevity) on 18.1.2001 to acquire 12.18 acres of land falling in Village Khera Markanda and 11.64 acres of land falling in Village Ratgal as mentioned in the Schedule thereto for the construction of a fell-storm sewer, a sewage-treatment plant and a crematorium (Shamshan Ghat) at Kurukshetra. Simultaneous with the issuance of this Notification, the Appellant State had also invoked the urgency provisions contained in Sections 17(1) and 17(4), thereby denying to the landowners (some of whom are the Respondents before us) the opportunity to file Objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act. A Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued the very next day, i.e. 19.1.2001. It was at this juncture that the Respondents/Landowners filed C.W.P. No. 2503 of 2002 and C.W.P. No. 8696 of 2002, (along with a third party namely Neelam Ram, the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 4887 of 2002) challenging the Section 4 Notification dated 18.1.2001 and the Section 6 Declaration dated 19.1.2001.

3. It will be pertinent to point out that by the time interim orders came to be passed in the Writ Petitions by the Division Bench on 7.2.2002, the one year period prescribed in the statute to advance from Notification to Declaration stage had already elapsed. It is also relevant to record that notwithstanding the interim order dated 7.2.2002, the Appellant State passed an Award on the next day, namely 8.2.2002, obviously oblivious of those interim orders. It also took possession of certain parts of the Scheduled lands. The one year prescription having been transgressed, the subject acquisition would have met its statutory death but for the feature that the urgency provisions had been invoked by the State in the event without legal propriety. The time table established under the L.A. Act requires to be recalled. Upon the publication of a Notification, affected landowners are required to file Objections within thirty days. Although no period has been prescribed for disposal of Objections by the Collector, this exercise must reach its culmination within one year of the Notification’s issuance. If these actions are so done, the Government must direct the Collector to “take order for the acquisition of the land” which is a statutory provision which smacks superficiality. The Collector must also mark and measure the land in question, cause public notice to be given of the Government’s intention to take possession of the land and invite claims for compensation etc. After deciding any objection or representation received from the interested parties, an Award has to be made within two years of the Declaration, failing which the entire acquisition proceedings would lapse. Of course the period covered by stay orders granted by a Court would be excluded. Parliament was, as is manifestly evident, alive to the injury that would inexorably visit the landowners if acquisition proceedings were not circumscribed by time, as compensation is pegged to the date of the Notification. The entire exercise has to be completed within three years.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 882

Cases Referred (13)