Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Bangalore - Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1345 to 1374 of 2022
Decided on : 22-03-2022
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 14 Rule 2 – Court to pronounce judgment on all issues – Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues – As such, it is duty cast upon courts to adjudicate on all issues and pronounce judgment on all issues rather than adopting a shortcut approach and pronouncing judgment on only one issue – By such a practice, it would increase burden on appellate court and in many cases if decision on issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by court, appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision – To avoid such an eventuality, courts have to adjudicate on all issues raised in a case and render findings and judgment on all issues involved. (Para 8.4)
(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There has been a trend of land owners filing fresh cases seeking lapse of acquisition on the basis of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, although such land owners may have earlier unsuccessfully filed writ petitions challenging acquisition notifications – Such land owners may have had benefit of interim orders of stay of further proceedings in acquisition process or dispossession resulting in a delay in making of award and payment/deposit of compensation and consequently in taking over possession of acquired land – There being delay in passing of award owing to interim orders granted by High Court or even by civil courts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, land owners cannot now take advantage of same so as to contend that no award has been made and consequently there has been no payment or deposit of compensation and that possession of acquired land continues with them – Land owners having had benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 – High Court or civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of land owners, ought to consider such aspect before applying Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 in favour of land owners-Common judgment and order passed by High Court allowing writ petitions and declaring that acquisition proceedings with respect to lands in question have lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 2013 cannot stand and same deserve to be quashed and set aside. (Paras 9, 10 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in respective writ appeals preferred by appellant herein – the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore (“APMC”), by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals and confirmed the common judgment and order passed by Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions preferred by private respondents herein – original land owners and declared that the acquisitions of the lands in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, APMC, Bangalore has preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
High Court ought to have adjudicated on all the issues raised and ought not to have decided and disposed of the writ petitions, adjudicating only on one issue which has been found to be erroneous. The Division Bench has also not applied its mind to this aspect of the matter and has simply dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant herein.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as such are between the same parties, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order in respective writ appeals preferred by the appellant herein - the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “APMC”), by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ appeals and confirmed the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective writ petitions preferred by the private respondents herein - original land owners and declared that the acquisitions of the lands in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2013”), the APMC, Bangalore has preferred the present appeals.
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:
3.1 That the lands in question were acquired in three parts. The first acquisition was in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land owned by respondent No.4 - Jamanlal Bajaj Seva Trust (for short “Trust”). Second acquisition was in respect of 104 acres 5 guntas of land owned by very respondent No.4 - Trust and the third acquisition was in respect of 3 acres 34 guntas of land (which is not the subject matter of appeals before this Court).
3.2 The relevant facts in respect of first and second acquisitions are as under:
In respect of 172 acres 22 guntas (First Acquisition)
3.2.1 That a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1894”) on 03.09.1994 in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land owned by respondent No.4 herein - Trust in Srigandadakaval Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru for establishing a mega market by the appellant - APMC, Bangalore.
3.2.2 One Rajajinagar House Building Cooperative Society challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1), before the High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition No.28988/1994. It was the case on behalf of the said society that the land should be acquired for them and not for APMC. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 23.12.1995.
3.3.3 Thereafter a notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 10.10.1996 and published on 13.10.1996. A draft award was prepared in respect of 172 acres 22 guntas of land on 12.08.1998.
3.3.4 On the instructions given by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant - APMC deposited Rs.9,14,14,873/on 19.08.1998 towards approximate cost of the acquisition.
3.3.5 It appears that the aforesaid Rajajinagar House Building Cooperative Society filed another writ petition being W.P. No.6880/1997 before the High Court, before the acquisition of 172.50 acres of land at Srigandadakaval Village could be completed. The High Court granted an exparte order of stay of acquisition proceedings vide interim order dated 16.09.1998. Thereafter respondent no.4 - original land owner filed Writ Petition No.3884/1998 before the High Court, challenging the acquisition proceedings. Vide interim order dated 08.02.1999, the High Court ordered stay of dispossession.
In respect of 104 acres 5 guntas (Second Acquisition)
3.4 That a notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894, dispensing with the requirement of hearing was issued on 13.04.1999 in respect of 104 acres 5 guntas of land owned by respondent No.4 - Trust in Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for establishing a mega market by the appellant - APMC. A final notification under Section 6(1) read with Section 17(1) to 17(4) was issued in respect of 100 acres 11 guntas out of 104 acres 5 guntas which had been notified under Section 4(1) on 13.04.1999, leaving an
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Period during which interim order passed by Court is/was operative, has to be excluded in computation of five years’ period.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – When acquisition proceedings were subject matter of litigation and because of that authority could not take possession of lands in question and as such not taki....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, both the contingencies of non-possession and non-payment of compe....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
