2006 Supreme(All) 2672

[2006(8) ADJ 203 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
MAHAVIR SAHKARI AVAS SAMITI LTD. .......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ...........Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66471 of 2005, decided on 26th September, 2006)

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11 and 17—Proceedings under—In respect of areas notified under Sections 4 and 6, spread over seven revenue villages—Petition against—Notification under Section 4(1)—Is a condition precedent to exercise any further powers under Act—Therefore, a notification under Section 4(1), is sine qua non, for initiating acquisition proceedings—In absence of such a notification, machineries provided by Act for further action, obviously, could not be proceeded—Declaration under Section 6, was conclusive proof for acquisition of land—As persons interested were being deprived of their properties and livelihood, provisions of Statute, required to be construed strictly—Therefore, it was legal obligations of authorities to ensure that acquisition proceedings were concluded at earliest—In case, acquisition proceedings were quashed by Court, it would cover lands of only those persons, who approached Court, by filing petitions—And it would not annul proceedings, in respect of those persons, who had not approached Court—Therefore, relief could not be granted to tenure-holders, as they had not filed objection under Section 5-A of Act. [Paras 8, 9, 14, 15, 17 and 61]

       (B) Limitation—Period of limitation—Controversy as to whether once notification was quashed by Court, period of limitation prescribed under Statute, could be extended or not—Prescription of time-limit, was peremptory in nature. [Paras 19, 20 and 61]

       (C) Stay order—In case, only one person obtains interim relief from Court, it would cover lands of other persons also—Therefore, an order obtained by some of persons, challenging acquisition proceedings, could be made applicable, in respect to entire lands, covered by said notification/declaration—It was totally immaterial, who challenges acquisition proceedings—In such a situation, stay would operate, in respect of all persons interested. [Paras 27 and 61]

       (D) Constitution of India—Article 142—Whether Supreme Court under Article 142, could pass an order, contrary to statutory provisions, i.e., to extend period of limitation—Held, Court could not extend period of limitation—Article 142 empowered Supreme Court to pass an order to do complete justice between parties—While issuing such an order, apex Court did not generally ignore substantive statutory provisions—Thus, it could not be held that Supreme Court had issued any direction, and asked authorities to proceed in contravention of statutory provisions as said residuary power was supplementary and complementary to powers, specially conferred upon apex Court by Statutes. [Paras 41, 42, 46 and 61]

       (E) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115—Proceedings under—Estoppel by conduct of a party—Estoppel did not operate against statute—Thus, question of application of estoppel against Statute/Public policy, did not arise. [Paras 47, 48, 52 and 61]

       (F) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 5-A—Objections under Section 5-A—Have to be dealt with in accordance with law, by providing opportunity of effective hearing to every objector, as it could not be held to be an empty formality and in case, such a hearing was not provided, subsequent proceedings would stand vitiated—Thus, discrimination on unreasonable classification, was not permissible. [Paras 53, 55, 60 and 61]

       (G) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11, 11-A and 17—Proceedings under—Successive notifications under Section 4, or declaration under Section 6 was made, either for reason of quashing notification/declaration by Court, or for reason of withdrawal of notification/declaration by State authorities, last notification/declaration treated to be valid for all purposes whatsoever. [Paras 34, 35 and 61]

       (H) Compensation—Against acquisition of land—Purchase of lands by persons, subsequent to notification under Section 4—Was not entitled to maintain a writ petition, as sale-deed in his favour was void, so far as State was concerned, though they may claim compensation in accordance with law. [Paras 35 and 61]

       (I) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 11, 11-A and 17—Acquisition proceedings under—Statutory prescribed period for making declaration under Section 6 of Act, having lapsed—All actions and consequences, subsequent to notification under Section 4, stood vitiated—Thus, impugned declaration under Section 6 was liable to be quashed, so far as lands involved in those petitions were concerned—Therefore, petitions allowed. [Para 83]