1. Land acquisition for a company under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, involving challenges to procedural compliance and the State's subsequent withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 353
1998(3) Supreme 275
Supreme Court of India
(From Gujarat High Court)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1672 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11778/97)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 1673-76 of 1998
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11900, 11957, 12986 and 14637/97)
Decided on 18-3-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Bhimrao N. Naik, S.K. Dholakia, R.P. Bhatt, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocates, Bharat Sangal, N.K. Neeraj, Ms. H. Wahi, Ms. S. Hazarika, M.N. Shroff, Ms. Tanuja Sheela Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocates I.M. Nanavati & Associates Advocates (NP)/ Advocates.
Important Points
Important Points
1. It is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied with. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged, that there is non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particular. No issue can be raised on a plea which is lacking in foundation. Even where Rule Nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the Court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the Court.
2. A writ petition challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be barred by laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time.
3. In view of Panchanama and revenue records being the accepted modes of taking of possession of the acquired land, it would not be proper for the High Court to convert itself into a revenue Court and hold that inspite of the Panchanama and the revenue records, actual physical possession of the acquired land was not handed over to the acquiring body.
4. A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Govt. decides to withdraw from the acquisition u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of any land of which possession has not been taken. An owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Govt. to withdraw from the acquisition as the rights of the owner are well protected by sub-section (2) of Section 48 and if he suffers any damage consequent to acquisition proceedings, he would be paid compensation as provided u/s 48(3) of the Act. However, in the case of a company, opportunity has to be given to it to show cause against any order which the State Govt. proposes to make withdrawing from the acquisition.
1. It is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied with. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged, that there is non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particular. No issue can be raised on a plea which is lacking in foundation. Even where Rule Nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the Court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the Court.
2. A writ petition challenging the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would be barred by laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time.
3. In view of Panchanama and revenue records being the accepted modes of taking of possession of the acquired land, it would not be proper for the High Court to convert itself into a revenue Court and hold that inspite of the Panchanama and the revenue records, actual physical possession of the acquired land was not handed over to the acquiring body.
4. A notification in the Official Gazette is required to be issued if the State Govt. decides to withdraw from the acquisition u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of any land of which possession has not been taken. An owner need not be given any notice of the intention of the State Govt. to withdraw from the acquisition as the rights of the owner are well protected by sub-section (2) of Section 48 and if he suffers any damage consequent to acquisition proceedings, he would be paid compensation as provided u/s 48(3) of the Act. However, in the case of a company, opportunity has to be given to it to show cause against any order which the State Govt. proposes to make withdrawing from the acquisition.
Subject
Land Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.41, S.4, S.9, S.48, S.6, S.16
LAND ACQUISITION COMPANIES RULES: R.3, R.4
LAND ACQUISITION ACT: S.41, S.4, S.9, S.48, S.6, S.16
LAND ACQUISITION COMPANIES RULES: R.3, R.4
Headnote
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6 and 48-Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963-Rr. 3 and 4-Acquisition for Company -Acquisition set aside by High Court on ground that provisions of Rr. 3 and 4 were not complied with and that actual physical possession of acquired land was not handed over to the Company and further held that the power of State Govt. to withdraw from acquisition proceeding is absolute and is not fettered by any restrictions-High Court not right in quashing acquisition proceedings as there was complaince not only with R. 4 but with R. 3 also though there was no challenge to R. 3 and averments regarding non-compliance with R. 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever-Further, High Court cannot convert itself into a revenue court and hold that inspite of the Panchanama and the revenue records, actual possession of the acquired land had not been handed over to the Company-Order of State Govt. withdrawing from acquisition without any notification regarding same in the official Gazette and a hearing to the Company, is illegal-Challenge to notifications u/ss 4 and 6 of the Act is barred by laches also. (Paras 9, 12, 17, 19, 28 & 29)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over non-compliance with Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, lack of Section 9 notices, failure to take physical possession, and the legality of unilateral withdrawal from acquisition. (Para 8 , 10 , 20 , 22 , 25 )
3. Analysis of Panchanama as a valid mode of possession, the necessity of Official Gazette notifications for withdrawal, and the requirement of natural justice for beneficiary companies. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
4. Withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 requires a Gazette notification and, where the beneficiary is a company, an opportunity to show cause before the decision. (Para 28 , 29 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; withdrawal orders quashed; direction to complete acquisition proceedings. (Para 30 )
6. How is possession of acquired land typically established?
Recording a memorandum of Panchanama in the presence of witnesses is an accepted mode of taking possession, especially where physical possession is difficult or the land is open. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
7. Is a formal notification required for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48?
Yes, a notification in the Official Gazette is required to effectuate withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. (Para 26 , 28 , 29 )
8. Must a company be heard before the State withdraws from acquisition under Section 48?
Yes, while owners need not be notified, a company for whose benefit land is acquired must be given an opportunity to show cause against proposed withdrawal. (Para 27 , 29 )
9. Can a challenge to Section 4 and 6 notifications be dismissed due to delay?
Yes, writ petitions challenging such notifications are liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches if not challenged within a reasonable time. (Para 10 , 19 )
Judgment
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted
All these five appeals arise out of a common judgment dated February 27, 1997 of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in three Special Civil Applications (SCA) Nos. 1568/87, 5149/89 and 5171/91 whereby the High Court set aside the acquisition of land for M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (‘L&T Ltd.’ for short) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) comprised in SCAs 1568/87 and 5149/89 and dismissed the challenge of L&T Ltd. in SCA 5171/ 91 for withdrawal from acquisition by the State Government under Section 48 of the Act. In all these matters, different notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued as it appeared to the State Government that lands specified in these notifications which were under challenge in these matters were likely to be needed for the purpose of a housing colony of the L&T Ltd. “which was engaged in Engineering Manufactures Industries which was for a public purpose”. All the lands are situated in Village Mandalla, Taluk Choryasi, District Surat. In SCA 1568/1987 acquisition was set aside on the ground that there was no compliance with the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (‘Rules’ for short). In SCA 5149/89 acquisition was set aside not only on the ground of non-compliance with the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules but also that petitioners therein were not served with notice under Section 9 of the Act before passing of the award. In SCA 5171 High Court held that the decision of the State Government for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of the Act was neither illegal nor ultra vires though the same would be enforceable only on the issuing of notification under Section 48 of the Act. In this case, High Court also held that actual physical possession of the land had not been delivered to the acquiring body L&T Ltd. Against the order passed in SCA 1568/87 both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special leave petition Nos. 11957/97 and 12986/97 respectively. Against the order in SCA 5149/89 again both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special leave petitions respectively bearing Nos. 11900/97 and 14637/97. Against the order in SCA 5171/91 it is only the L&T Ltd. who is aggrieved and has filed special leave petition No. 11778/97. In this State Government is supporting its action for withdrawal from acquisition.
2. Under the Act, land can be acquired for a company as well. “Company” means a company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is such a company. Under Section 4 of the Act whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published and a public notice also to be given in the said locality. Under Section 5-A any person interested in any land notified under Section 4 can object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Procedure is prescribed as to how objections are to be heard by the Collector and his making the report to the Government. Under Section 6 when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A that any land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect. Part VII of the Act deals with acquisition of land for companies. Under Section 39 falling in Part VII, the provisions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37 shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any Company unless with the previous consent of the appropriate Government and not unless the Company shall have executed the agreement as prescribed. Under Section 40 an enquiry is to be made before the appropriate Government consents to acquisition of land for the Company. This Section, in relevant part, is as under:
“40. Previous enquiry.-(1) Such consent shall not be g
