To declare the action of the respondents in taking over possession of the subject land owned by him pursuant to acquisition made by respondent no. 2 as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law. (Para 1)
Therefore, partly allowing the writ petition, High Court directed respondent nos. 2 and 3 to complete the exercise for grant of alternate plot on or before 31.01.2010 or otherwise determine compensation on or before 30.04.2010 and pay damages as per Section 48A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’) in accordance with law. (Para 2)
Thus, admittedly, after taking of possession of subject land, road was constructed in 1970 on it and is in public use since then. (Para 4)
Thereafter, the land owner on 29.04.1992 filed ‘Writ Petition No. 2022/1992’ before High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench praying the above said reliefs. (Para 8)
The issuance of three notices under Section 9(3) of LA Act; the order dated 01.08.1981 passed by SLAO separating the papers of land owner as evident from the records; the passing of the award dated 22.09.1986 in the case of landowners of other Khasra Nos. 35/3 and 35/4 were neither denied nor disputed. More so, the SLAO in its reply did not raise any plea of delay and latches in filing the writ petition by landowner. (Para 8)
Therefore, the land owner on the anvil of said order cannot contest that his land was not acquired. The passing of the award on 02.09.1986 for the land of other land holders was not denied. With respect to prayer for grant of compensation @ Rs. 400 to Rs. 500 per. sq. ft., it was said that the actual value of land may hardly be Rs. 125 to Rs. 150 per sq. ft. at relevant time, hence, the compensation as sought is on the higher side. It was lastly submitted that the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay, therefore, it ought to be dismissed on the ground of laches. (Para 9)
The High Court by the impugned order partly allowed the writ petition as referred above. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court assailing the said judgment. (Para 10)
The appellant filed additional affidavit along with a valuation report dated 16.07.2013 showing the current market value of land as in the year 2013 as Rs. 3,93,45,696/. In view of the inordinate delay in passing of award from the date of notification and taking over of possession, prayer is made to mould the relief in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11)
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, in our view, the following questions arise for consideration:
i) Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court negating the plea of appellant seeking ‘lapse’ of the acquisition proceedings in terms of Section 11A of LA Act is liable to be interfered with?
ii) Whether decision of NIT refusing to grant alternative plot, as directed by the High Court, requires interference in this appeal?
iii) Whether in the peculiar facts of the case, delay caused in determination of compensation despite time bound directions by the High Court, what suitable relief can be granted to appellant?
In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 11A of LA Act which provides for lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings, would not be applicable where acquisition was made under NIT Act. In view of the foregoing discussion and settled law, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in negating the plea of lapsing of acquisition proceedings as raised by the appellant. (Para 15)
As discussed, after the rejection of the representation to grant alternate land particularly in absence of any statutory backing, we are not inclined to entertain the said plea. (Para 16)
In the case at hand, compulsory acquisition of the subject land was initiated issuing preliminary notification in 1962 and final notification in January 1969 under the provisions of NIT Act with the aid of LA Act. (Para 17)
The correspondence also reflects that in absence of initiation of proceedings for determination of compensation, land owner submitted a representation to allot alternate land equal to the land of Khasra No. 35/8 in the same locality which was denied on 06.03.1987. (Para 21)
NIT filed additional affidavit in which reference to ‘exparte’ award passed on 30.04.2013 was made for the first time and it was stated that a sum of Rs. 54,717/has been awarded to the appellant. On 21.10.2013, during arguments, this Court found that there was an inordinate delay in passing the award dated 22.09.1986 in the case of other land owners. Therefore, an explanation was sought for delay of 17 years, 8 months and 13 days. (Para 23)
In furtherance to the said order, it is only the appellant who filed the chart and explained as to how and in what manner, the delay is caused. It was further stated that only respondents are responsible for not passing the award despite time bound directions given by the High Court. Conversely, the SLAO passed an exparte award that too without any intimation or notice as mandated by Section 12(2) of LA Act. (Para 26)
As per discussion made above and in the facts of this case, what amount of compensation may be directed to the appellant herein needs to be looked into. In this regard, in the case of compulsory acquisition of land, the eminent domain of the State cannot be doubted. Simultaneously, right of the land owner enshrined under Article 300A and Article 31A of the Constitution of India which has been recognized as a human/civil right cannot be overlooked. Therefore, if any individual is to be divested or deprived of the said right by the State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for the land so acquired for public purpose. (Para 28)
It is observed that, on compulsory acquisition of land, if the award is not passed within a reasonable time duly compensating such an individual, it would cause grave hardship and it would adversely affect the livelihood of the land loser. In the said judgments, because of inordinate delay in passing the awards, the Court had changed the date of preliminary notification ordinarily applicable in determining the market value of land for assessing amount of compensation, to the date of the judgment of the Court, and/or the date of award passed belatedly. This Court has recognized the right of the citizen after taking possession of the land without payment of compensation. As observed, the delay in determining compensation uproots the land losers, however, to meet the ends of justice and to rationalize the equity, switching the date of market value in determining compensation by the orders of the Court is found necessary. (Para 32)
The appeal is allowed in part with the following directions (Para 35)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 257 SC
[2023 INSC 818]
Loonkaran Gandhi (D) Thr. Lr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 2644 of 2016-Decided on 6-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-257-SC.pdf
