2023 Supreme(SC) 186

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Indore Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5099 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5074 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5075 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5076 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5078 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5079 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5081 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5080 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5082 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5084 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5087 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5088 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5090 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5091 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5093 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5094 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5095 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5096 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5097 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5098 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5101 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5103 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5104 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5105 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5106 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5077 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5083 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5086 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5089 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5100 OF 2022, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5102 OF 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Interpretation of the word “implementation” occurring in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - Scheme No. 97 framed under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 - Lapse of scheme under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam - Interpretation of the word “implementation” - Delegation of power to Collector with regard to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Hostile discrimination on the part of the State Government and the Indore Development Authority (IDA) - Validity of the scheme and acquisition proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

IDA passed a resolution under Section 50(1) of the Adhiniyam declaring its intention to frame Scheme No. 97. The scheme was published in the Official Gazette on 08.06.1984. IDA started mutual negotiations with the landowners for procurement of their land for Scheme No. 97. Since the mutual negotiations failed, IDA moved the Collector for acquisition of the land. Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette and the notification was then also published in the two daily Hindi Newspapers on 14.08.1987. The Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer filed its report under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 before the Collector for approval and also submitted the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 for signature of the Collector. The same was duly approved by the Collector. The Deputy Collector filed its reports in respect of village Tejpur Garbari and also in respect of village Pipaliyarao under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 and also filed an approval order of the Collector, for issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on 7.10.1988 and the said declaration was then also published in daily newspapers on different dates and lastly on 16.12.1988. The Collector then submitted its report to the Commissioner under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 with the recommendation to reject the objections and to grant approval for issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894, which was approved by the Commissioner vide its letter dated 6.12.1988. After the publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings before the Collector, some of the landowners whose lands were acquired for Scheme No. 97 filed writ petitions before the High Court and obtained interim orders against dispossession of their land. The Collector made his award in respect of the acquired land on 6.03.1991. The original writ petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Petition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court challenging the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and prayed that the entire acquisition proceedings be quashed. The original writ petitioners also prayed that Scheme No. 97 prepared by the IDA be quashed and their land be ordered to be deleted and released therefrom. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Scheme framed by the IDA as well as the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government, mainly on three grounds, namely:- (i) That the objections invited under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act were not decided by the Competent Authority, i.e., State Government. (ii) That there was hostile discrimination against the respondents by the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh inasmuch as the various parcels of land owned by several other persons and societies forming part of the same scheme were released by the appellant violating the fundamental rights of the respondents as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That in view of Section 54 of the Adhiniyam, the Scheme lapsed as it was not implemented within three years from the date of its publication as provided under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by IDA.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court erred in declaring the scheme as having lapsed on the ground of non-implementation of the scheme under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The words “commence implementation” occurring in Section 54 do not mean completion of implementation of the scheme. The only reasonable interpretation of Section 54 would be that some steps should be taken by the Authority for implementation of the scheme and must have an intention to implement the scheme. The High Court erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the ground that there was no delegation of power by the State Government with regard to Section 5A of the Act, 1894 to the Collector. The High Court erred in declaring the scheme as having lapsed on the ground of non-implementation of the scheme under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam.

Issues: Whether the scheme has lapsed under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam due to non-implementation within three years? Whether there was a proper delegation of power to the Collector with regard to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? Whether there was hostile discrimination on the part of the State Government and the IDA?

Ratio Decidendi: The word “implementation” occurring in Section 54 of the Adhiniyam cannot be construed to mean that even if a substantial step has been taken by the authority towards the implementation of the scheme then also the scheme shall lapse after the expiry of three years because of its non-completion within that period. The words used in Section 56 of the Adhiniyam r/w Rule 19 and for the purposes of land acquisition under Section 56 of the Adhiniyam, within three years from the date of publication of the final town development scheme under Section 50, the Town and Country Development Authority shall proceed to acquire the land required for the implementation of the scheme. The words used are “ proceed to acquire” and not “actual acquisition”. The intention of the legislature thus seems to be very clear and unambiguous. Therefore, when the Statute provides certain things to be done within the stipulated time mentioned in the Act, the Authority is to be given such time, more particularly while dealing with the scheme which has been framed for the entire area and for the public purpose.

Final Decision: The appeals are allowed and the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ appeals and the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge declaring Scheme No. 97 as having lapsed under Section 54 of the Adhiniyam and quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings with respect to the lands in question, are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and accordingly are hereby quashed and set aside.