Back
2010 (4) Supreme 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
May George — Appellant
versus
Special Tahsildar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2006
Decided on : 25-5-2010
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 6 and 11 – Acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged at a belated stage. (Para 11)
JT 2010 (3) SC 602 – Relied upon
(c) Interpretation of statute – Provision mandatory or declaratory – The test is as to whether non-compliance of the provision could render entire proceedings invalid or not – It depends upon the intent of Legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed – The issue is to be examined having regard to the context, subject matter and object of the statutory provisions in question. (Paras 14 and 24)
AIR 1952 SC 181; AIR 1961 SC 751; AIR 1965 SC 895; AIR 1975 SC 2190; AIR 1980 SC 303; (2003) 3 SCC 433; AIR 2003 SC 511; AIR 2004 SC 2036; AIR 1989 SC 1160; (2000) 7 SCC 679; (1995) 1 SCC 133; (2009) 1 SCC 714 – Relied upon
(d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 9(3) – Failure of issuance of notice under section 9(3) would not adversely affect the subsequent proceedings including the Award and title of the government in the acquired land. (Para 25)
(e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 30 – The interested person is entitled only to compensation – In case of large number of such persons necessitating apportionment of compensation, Collector may be approached for a reference u/s 30. (Para 26)
AIR 1966 SC 237 – Relied upon
(f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 9 and 10 – If there is an irregularity in service of notice under sections 9 and 10, it could be a curable irregularity – Award under Section 11 would not become invalid on account of irregularity u/s 9 and 10. (Para 28)
(1996) 7 SCC 269; (1997) 4 SCC 199 – Relied upon
(g) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 r/w Article 136, Constitution of India – If High Court has considered the matter in detail and recorded the findings on factual question Supreme Court may not examine that question at all. (Para 30)
(2009) 10 SCC 689 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
1.In a land acquisition proceeding considering grave urgency, filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with and provisions of Section 17 of the Act were resorted to. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made and Award under Section 11 was made in respect of entire land covered by the said Notification and Declaration.
2. Appellant claimed that she had purchased the said land on 27.9.1961 and mutation had taken place, thus her name stood recorded in the revenue record. Appellant claims to be unaware of the acquisition proceedings as she was not served with notice under section 9(3) of the Act. She was never dispossessed from the said part of the land. She was granted temporary licence for establishing Small Scale Industries on 24.11.1984 and a permanent certificate for the said purpose on 31.1.1986.
3. She got the information first time that a part of her land had been acquired only on receiving the notice dated 8.12.1986 issued by Respondent-Department to the effect that she was in illegal possession and occupation of the said part of the land and she was directed to demolish the structure put up by her.
4. Appellant, after collecting the required documents, approached the High Court which dismissed her petition.
5. Her writ appeal was also dismissed but with liberty to make a reference u/s 18 and direction to the reference Court to adjudicate the same expeditiously.
Finding of the Court:
Irregularity in service of notice under sections 9 and 10 is curable; however the requirements thereof were complied with.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —
1.This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Madras dismissing the Writ Appeal No.1692 of 1997 by which the Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 4.12.1997 in Writ Petition No.14319 of 1986 wherein the appellant had challenged the Award made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that he had been served with the notice under section 9(3) of the Act.
2.Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 7.1.1976 covering the area to the extent of 30.80 acres being part of different survey numbers and belonging to large number of persons in Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District of Tamil Nadu for planned development of Electrical/Electronics Industrial Estate including appellant’s land measuring 33 cents therein in Survey No. 36/1A/1. Considering grave urgency, filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with and provisions of Section 17 of the Act were resorted to. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 1.10.1976 and Award under Section 11 was made on 16.11.1979 in respect of entire land covered by the said Notification and Declaration.
3.Appellant claimed that she had purchased the said land on 27.9.1961 and mutation had taken place, thus her name stood recorded in the revenue record. Appellant’s grievance has been that she had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice under section 9(3) of the Act. She was never dispossessed from the said part of the land. She was granted temporary licence for establishing Small Scale Industries on 24.11.1984 and a permanent certificate for the said purpose on 31.1.1986.
4.She got the information first time that a part of her land had been acquired only on receiving the notice dated 8.12.1986 issued by Respondent-Department to the effect that she was in illegal possession and occupation of the said part of the land and she was directed to demolish the structure put up by her.
5.Appellant, after collecting the required documents, approached the High Court by filing the Writ Petition No.14319/86 challenging the Award dated 16.11.1979 and other subsequent proceedings. The Ld. Single Judge dismissed the petition vide judgment and order dated 4.12.1997.
6.Being aggrieved, appellant preferred the Writ Appeal No.1692 of 1997 which has also been dismissed vide impugned Judgment. However, the Court has given liberty to the appellant to move an application for making reference under section 18 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference, if such an application is filed within a period of four weeks thereafter, and the Court further directed the Tribunal to decide the reference within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. Hence, this appeal.
7.Shri Shekhar Naphade, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised large number of issues and made an attempt to challenge the entire acquisition proceedings though the limited prayer of quashing the Award was made before the High Court. Shri Naphade has submitted that the provisions of Section 9 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the Award and all other consequential proceedings. Appellant had never been aware of issuance of Section 4 Notification or Section 6 Declaration or Award made thereafter. No notice had ever been served upon her in respect of acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
8.Per contra, Shri R. Venkataramani, Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been given due publicity as per the requirement of law. Section 9(3) notice had been affixe
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
