Back
2002(7) Supreme 607
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Northern Indian Glass Industries -Appellant
versus
Jaswant Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 1993
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 7025-30 & 7024 of 1993
Decided on 29-10-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sanjiv Sen, Vivek Sharma, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ravindra Bana, Anurag Bana, Neeraj Kumar Jain and J.P. Dhanda, Advocates.
Held : In our view, in the absence of any explanation for inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondents 1-5 in approaching the High Court, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on this short ground. (Para 6)
Held further : There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the land owner does not get any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of the possession. (Para 9)
Held also : If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land. In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant company. (Para 12)
Held in addition : We have to deal with one more contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1-5 that a different procedure has to be followed for acquisition of land by the State for the purpose of a private company. There is no dispute on that point. We fail to understand how this contention advances the case of the respondents when they did not challenge the acquisition proceedings, even on that ground if it was available within reasonable time. It was too late for them to challenge the acquisition proceedings on that ground as well. (Para 13)
Held finally : The appeals are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (Para 15)
ORDER
The appellant-company approached the State of Haryana for acquisition of land for establishing a sheet glass factory. The State Government, on being satisfied, took a decision to initiate proceedings in respect of the land in question. Preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 2.7.1973. Thereafter declaration was made under Section 6 on 4.9.1973. The Collector passed the award on 20.6.1974 in respect of the said land, awarding compensation to the land owners i.e. respondent Nos. 1-5 herein, a sum of Rs. 3,93,688.12. The amount of compensation was also paid to the respondents on 16.10.1974 and the possession of the land was also taken on the same date. The respondents made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Rohtak enhanced the compensation amount by a sum of Rs. 59,349. The respondents 1-5 not being satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation, approached the High Court by filing an appeal. The High Court by judgment dated 2.6.1988 enhanced the compensation by an amount of Rs. 8.10 lakhs.
2. The respondents filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14735/1991 in the High Court on 25.9.1991 praying for quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and for other reliefs. The said writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 5.3.1992. Hence, this appeal by the company for whose benefit the land was acquired.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court was not right in entertaining the writ petition condoning the delay and laches on the part of respondents in approaching the High Court almost after a period of 17 years, that too when the acquisition proceedings had attained finality and possession also had been taken as early as on 16.10.1994 on which date the land vested with the State free from all encumbrances. The High Court committed an error in quashing the acquisition proceedings and directing restoration of the land to the respondents, even though the land was not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. The learned counsel cited a few decisions in support of his submissions.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 1-5 made submissions in support of justification of the impugned judgment. He contended that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, when the appellant railed to utilize the land acquired for the purpose for which it was acquired and when it was making unjust enrichment out of the land acquired, the High Court was just and right in passing the impugned judgment.
5. It may be stated that the State has also filed appeals challenging the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 7024 and 7025-7030 of 1993. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land acquired. He stated that this submission was made before the High Court also but, unfortunately, the same was not considered.
6. It is not in dispute that the writ petition was filed almost after 17 years from the date of passing the award and after taking possession of land. There is no explanation for inordinate delay and laches except the statement made in para 8 of the writ petition to the effect, that although the possession of the land was taken 17 years back in 1973, the compensation was not paid fully and the acquisition was mala fide and illegal and that the acquisition was made only to peg down the prices. It is also not in dispute that respondents 1-5 accepted/received the amount of compensation as early as on 16.10.1974 on the basis of the award passed; they sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation and further they pursued the matter in the High Court seeking further enhancement of the compensation till 1988. Three years thereafter they filed writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings. In our view, in the absence of any explanation for inordinate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
