Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 684
2004 (1) JLJ 210
Deepak Verma and S.K. Seth, JJ.
Surila Khatri (Smt.) and others v. State of M.P. and others
L.P.A. No. 1316 of 2002; against the order of Single Bench passed in Writ Petition; Decided on 16.5.2003.
Ajay Bagadiya for appellants;
Shekhar Bhargava with Smt. R. Bhargava and Pal for respondents;
Mukhoti, Govt. Advocate for State.
Headnote:(1) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (M.P.) -- S. 50(7) -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4 and 6 -- main plot number mentioned in notifications issued under -- fraction of land out of main plot sold after acquisition proceedings -- separate number given to such plot -- non-inclusion of such number is immaterial.
Before us, Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that as the plot in question was not included and shown in either of the notifications issued under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam or section 4 of the Act, therefore, the same could not be acquired. [Para 3
Undisputedly the plot in question was part of larger plot (Survey No. 3393/1) admeasuring 1.515 hectare. Shashikant Agarwal and two other persons bought a portion thereof admeasuring 0.618 he.ctare somewhere in the year 1989-90 and the said piece of land was recorded in revenue records as Survey No. 3393/3. Later on, Shashikant and other co-owners sold it to the present appellants through registered sale deed dated 20.11.2001. It is also undisputed that plot bearing Survey No. 3393/1 admeasuring 1.515 hectare was included in both the notifications issued under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam and section 4 of the Act (Ann. P-4 and P-5 published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 8.7.1988 and 15.3.1991 respectively).
Held: LAO rejected the objection holding that appellants had no title over the plot in question as the sale deed in their favour was subsequent to the notification issued under section 6 of the Act. Pursuant to the Award, possession was taken on 1.5.2002.Thus, from the facts stated above, conclusion is inevitable that plot bearing Survey No. 3393/3, which was carved out from plot bearing Survey No. 3393/1 was all along subject matter of the acquisition proceedings and the appellants cannot save the plot bearing Survey No. 3393/3 from the clutches of acquisition proceedings. [Para 8
(2) Letters Patent Appeal -- is an intra-Court appeal n Court sits as Court of Correction to correct its own orders.
A Letters patent appeal as permitted under the Letters Patent is normally an intra-Court appeal whereunder Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects it own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language. 1996 MPLJ 1074 (SC) followed. [Para 6
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 6 and 4 -- notification issued as per orders of the High Court -- no question of limitation arises.
He further submitted that entire proceedings lapsed as notification under section 6 of the Act was issued after lapse of one year from the date of notification issued under section 4. [Para 3
Held : The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.1.2000 and it was directed that limitation for issuing section 6 notification would start from the date of the said order. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, section 6 notification was issued and published in the M.P. Rajpatra dated 18.2.2000. [Para 8
(4) Constitution of India -- Arts. 226 and 227 -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S. 11 -- award under S. 11 passed -- writ petition thereafter is not proper proceedings -- more so when petitioner does not come with clean hands. AIR 1997 SC 482 and AIR 2000 SC 671 followed. [Para 9
(5) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 11-A, 11 and 6 -- notification under S. 6 issued in time as per High Court‘s order -- award passed within two years. -- is within time.
The learned Single Judge who heard and decided the W.P. No. 1188 of 1991 ordered that the limitation for notification under 6 of the Act would start from the date of order which was passed on 18.1.2000. Said order of the learned Single Judge was maintained in the L.P.A. No. 55 of 2000. Notification under 6 of the Act was issued on 1.2.2000 and the same was published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 18.2.2000. Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing the objections, passed the Award on 15.2.2002 within two years from the date of order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 1188 of 1991. In view of this, in the opinion of this Court, no infirmity can be attributed to the notification issued under section 6 and the consequent Award of the Land Acquisition Officer. AIR 1997 SC 2130 distinguished. [Para 10
¼1½ uxj rFkk xzke fuos‘k vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 50¼7½ && Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 4 rFkk 4 rFkk 6 && ds v/khu tkjh vf/klwpukvksa esa eq[; Hkw&[kaM la[;kad mfYyf[kr && eq[; Hkw&[kaM esa ls Hkwfe dk va‘k] vtZu dk;Zokgh ds i‘pkr~ foØhr && ,sls Hkw&[kaM dks i`Fkd~ la[;kad fn;k x;k && ,sls la[;kad dk lfEefyr ugha fd;k tkuk egRoghu gSA
vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls milatkr fo}ku dkmUlsy Jh vt; ckxfM+;k us gekjs le{k vkxzg fd;k fd D;kasfd iz‘uxr Hkw&[kaM vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 50¼7½ ds v/khu ;k Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpukvksa esa lfEefyr vkSj nf‘kZr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] blfy, og vftZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA ¿ iSjk 3À
fufoZokn :i ls] iz‘uxr Hkw&[kaM 1-515 gSDVs;j eki ds cM+sa Hkw[kaM ¼losZ{k.k la- 3393@1½ dk Hkkx FkkA ‘kf‘kdkar vxzoky vkSj nks vU; O;fDr;ksa us 0-618 gSDVs;j eki dk mldk ,d va‘k o"kZ 1989&90 esa dHkh Ø; fd;k vkSj Hkwfe dk mDr VqdM+k jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa losZ{k.k la- 3393@1 ds :i esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;kA ckn esa] ‘kf‘kdkar vkSj vU; lg&Lokfeksa us mls jftLVªhd`r foØ; foys[k fnukad 20-11-2001 }kjk orZeku vihykfFkZ;ksa dks foØ; dj fn;kA ;g Hkh fufoZokn gSA fd 1-515 gSDVs;j eki dk losZ{k.k la- 3393@1 dk Hkw[kaM vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 50¼7½ vkSj Hkw&vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ nksuksa vf/klwpukvksa ¼e-iz- jkti= fnukad 8-7-1988 rFkk 15-3-1991 esa Øe‘k% izdkf‘kr mikca/k ih&4 vkSj ih&5½ esa lfEefyr FkkA
¼2½ ysVlZ isVsaV vihy && varjU;k;ky;hu vihy gS && U;k;ky; vius Lo;a ds vkns‘kksa dh ‘kqf) djus ds fy, ‘kqf)dj.k U;k;ky; ds :i esa dk;Z djrk gSA
ysVlZ isVsaV ds v/khu ;Fkk vuqKkr ysVlZ isVsaV lkekU;r% varjU;k;ky;hu vihy gksrh gS ftlds v/khu ‘kqf)dj.k U;k;ky; ds :i esa ihBklhu ysVslZ isaVsaV U;k;ihB }kjk mlh vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ds vius&gh vkns‘k ‘kq) fd, tkrs gS tks ,dy U;k;ihB esa fufgr FkhA og v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k ds fo#) vihy ugha gksrhA ,slh vihyh vf/kdkfjr esa mPp U;k;ky; =qfV laca/kh U;k;ky; dh ‘kfDr iz;qDr djrk gSA bl vFkZ esa ysVlZ isVsaV ds v/khu vihyh ‘kfDr] izfØ;kRed Hkk"kk esa lk/kkj.kr% tSlh le>k tkrk gS mlls furkar lqfHké gSA 1996 ,e ih ,y ts 1074 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6À
¼3½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 6 rFkk 4 && vf/klwpuk mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns‘kkuqlkj tkjh dh xbZ && ifjlhek dk iz‘u gh ugha mBrkA
mudk vxyk fuosnu Fkk fd laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh gh O;ixr gks xbZ D;ksafd Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk] /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk ds fnukad ls ,d o"kZ O;rhr gksus ds i‘pkr~ tkjh dh xbZ FkhA ¿ iSjk 3À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us vkns‘k fnuakd 18-1-2000 }kjk fjV ;kfpdk eatwj dh Fkh vkSj funs‘k fn;k Fkk fd /kkjk 6 dh vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds fy, ifjlhek mDr vkns‘k ds fnukad ls izkjaHk gksxhA iwoksZDr vkns‘k ds vuqlj.k esa /kkjk 6 dh vf/klwpuk tkjh dh xbZ vkSj e-iz- jkti= fnukad 18-2-2000 esa izdkf‘kr dh xbZA ¿ iSjk 8À
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 rFkk 227 && Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 11 && /kkjk 11 ds v/khu vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr && rRi‘pkr~ fjV ;kfpdk mfpr dk;Zokgh ugha gS && fo‘ks"kr% tc ;kph fu‘diV ugha vk,A , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 482 rFkk , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 671 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼5½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 && /kkjk 11d] 11 rFkk 6 && /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns‘kkuqlkj le; ij tkjh && vf/kfu.kZ; nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj ikfjr && vof/k ds Hkhrj gSA
fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k us] ftUgkssaus fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 1188 lu~ 1991 lquh vkSj fofuf‘pr dh vkns‘k fn;k fd Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kjk 6+ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk dh ifjlhek vkns‘k ds fnukad ls] tks 181-2000 dks ikfjr gqvk Fkk] izkjaHk gksxhA fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k dh mDr vkns‘k ysVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø- 55 lu~ 2000 esa dk;e j[kk x;kA Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk 1-2-2000 dks tkjh dh xbZ Fkh vkSj og e-iz- jkti= fnukad 18-2-2000 esa izdkf‘kr dh xbZ FkhA Hkwfe vtZu vf/kdkjh us vkifRrÙk;k¡ lquus ds i‘pkr~ fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 1188 lu~ 1991 eas fo}ku ,dy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds fnukad ls nks o"kZ ds Hkhrj] 15-2-2002 dk vf/kfu.kZ; ikfjr fd;kA bl n`f"V ls] bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa] /kkjk 6 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ij rFkk Hkwfe vtZu vf/kdkjh ds i‘pkr~orhZ vf/kfu.kZ; esa ‘kSfFkY; vkjksfir ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 2130 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 10À-
Seth, J. -- 1. Appellants, having lost before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, are before us in this intra-Court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
2. Appellants claim that they are the joint owners of plot bearing Survey No. 3393/3 admeasuring 0.618 hectare situated in Ujjain. It is alleged that they had purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 20.11.2001 from Shashikant and other two co-owners. The plot in question and other adjoining parcel of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings in which Land Acquisition Officer, Ujjain passed the Award on 15.2.2002 pursuant to the Notification issued under section 50(7) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam'" for short) read with the Notification issued under section 4 and followed by section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as "the Act" for short). Appellants challenged before the learned Single Judge, acquisition of their plot bearing Survey No. 3393/3 on various grounds. Learned Single Judge, after hearing counsel for respective parties, found no merit and substance in the writ petition and dismissed the same by Order dated 21.10.2002, which, as mentioned above, is under challenge before us.
3. Before us, Shri Ajay Bagadiya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that as the plot in question was not included and shown in either of the Notifications issued under section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam or section 4 of the Act, therefore, the same could not be acquired. He further submitted that entire proceedings lapsed as Notification under section 6 of the Act was issued after lapse of one year from the date of Notification issued under section 4. Lastly it was contended that the A ward was passed after 2 years from the date of Notification issued under section 6 of the Act, thus, delay was fatal to the acquisition. Lastly, Shri Bagadiya, also urged that dead witnesses signed delivery of possession panchanama that shows that possession was not taken from the appellants and they still continue to be in possession of plot in question. .
4. Per contra, Shri Shekhar Bhargava, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Smt. R. Bhargava and Shri Pal, Advocates for respondent Ujjain Development Authority, the main contestant in the case, and Shri Mukhoti, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State supported the impugned Order of the learned Single Judge and the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and submitted that the none of the contentions raised on behalf of appellants are borne out from the facts established on record and as such they being devoid of any substance merit rejection and no interference is warranted either with the A ward or the impugned Order of the learned Single Judge.
5. We have perused the record and given our serious consideration to the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for respective parties in the context of factual background prevailing in the present case. After due consideration, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal so as to warrant interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. Before taking up the submission advanced by the counsel appearing for the respective parties, it would be necessary to notice the ambit and scope of jurisdiction in Letters Patent appeal. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of (Baddula Lakshmaiah and others v. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others) reported in 1996 MPLJ 1074 wherein it has been held as under :
"A Letters patent appeal as permitted under the Letters Patent is normally an intra-Court appeal whereunder Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects it own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a Subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of
