Back
1997 Supreme(Sikk) 5
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
M. SENGUPTA
PEM EDEN BHUTIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF SIKKIM - Respondents
W. P. 32 Of 1996
Decided On : May 29, 1997
A.Moulik, G.P.ROY, J.B.Pradhan, U.P.SHARMA
Acquisition of land without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid, but a challenge to such acquisition may be barred by delay and acceptance of compensation.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - SIKKIM LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1977 - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 9, 11, 12, 18 - ACQUISITION OF LAND WITHOUT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS - CHALLENGING ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners' lands were acquired for a hydel power project without complying with the formalities and statutory requirements prescribed under the Sikkim Land Acquisition Act of 1977 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Petitioners alleged illegal acquisition, non-payment of compensation, and encroachment of lands outside the acquired lands.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the acquisition of land without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act vitiated the entire proceeding. However, the court found that the petitioners had received compensation without protest and had not challenged the acquisition proceedings in a timely manner. The court also noted that alternative remedies were available to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land without complying with the statutory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act was valid. 2. Whether the petitioners were barred from challenging the acquisition proceedings due to their delay and acceptance of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition of land without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act was invalid. The court relied on precedents holding that statutory requirements for land acquisition are mandatory and their absence vitiates the entire proceeding. 2. The court held that the petitioners were barred from challenging the acquisition proceedings due to their delay and acceptance of compensation. The court noted that the petitioners had received compensation without protest and had not challenged the acquisition proceedings in a timely manner. The court also noted that alternative remedies were available to the petitioners under the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it could not entertain the petition at this stage due to the complicated questions of disputed facts and the availability of alternative remedies.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for alleged violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Arts. 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE fact of the case is that for the purpose of construction of a very big hydel power project known as Rothangchu Hydel Project, the Government of Sikkim in general and the Power Department of the State Government in particular needed considerable amount of land. Most of such lands belonged to the petitioners before us. The allegations of the petitioners is that the lands were acquired without complying with the necessary formalities and statutory requirements prescribed under the Sikkim Land Acquisition Act of 1977 or the Land acquisition Act, 1894. Illegal method of acquisition, non-payment of compensation, encroachment of lands outside the acquired lands are the main objections of the petitioners.
( 3 ) THE State-Defendant contest the suit by way of filing written statements wherein the maintainability of the writ itself has been challenged on the ground that the petitioners all along conceded to the acquisition of land, fixing of compensation and ultimately took huge amount towards compensation. On this background the petitioners cannot be allowed to challenge the acquisition proceedings at least at this belated stage. It has also been contended that the ground for which acquisition has been attempted to be challenged are frivolous and the same cannot be properly dealt with by the Court exercising writ jurisdiction. In fine, the remedy if at all available to the petitioners is at a different forum.
( 4 ) THE respondent No. 4 who is one of the awardees contest the claim of the petitioners by filing a separate affidavit-in-opposition. This respondent claims that no unfair means was adopted in the process of acquisition of lands in question. He has urged further that he has unnecessarilybeen dragged to this writ proceeding as no relief has been claimed against him.
( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY there was no notification under S. 4 or 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, though the jurisdiction of the Act was extended to the State of Sikkim with effect from 8-9-77. It is obvious that statutory requirements of such an Act is mandatory and absence of any of such mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceeding. We may refer to the decisions reported in AIR 1973 SC 552 (Narinderjit Singh v. State of U. P.) and 1992 (1) SCC 114 : (AIR 1992 SC 131) (Nutakhi Sesharatnan v. Sub-Collector, Land Acquisition ). We may also keep in mind that wherever certain procedures are prescribed under any law, the same should be complied with in the manner as prescribed. Decisions reported in AIR 1962 SC 554 (H. S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality) paragraph 13, and 1995 (1) SCC 156 : (1995 AIR SCW 1497) (State of Mizoram v. Biakchhawna) are relevant in this context. Hence the allegations brought by the petitioners cannot be said to be without any base. The case of the respondents on this point is that the lands were acquired through negotiations and the concerned parties agreed to such stand and also after some bargaining they conceded to the rate of compensation or price as it may be said. A document signed by the petitioners and other owners of lands acquired in this connection, has been shown to us. It is some sort of an agreement which was signed by the petitioners, other interested persons, local government officials and political personalities on 12-6-1992.
( 6 ) THE contention of the respondents is that since the petitioners agreed to hand over the lands on the amount of compensation so settled by negotiation there was no necessity of issuance of any notification. The contention of the petitioners on the other hand is that lands of private persons could be utilised for public purpose if the same was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act of this State or of the Government of India. The Government may, however, purchase the same straightw
