//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.4.5 A and 6 -Section 17(1)/17(4) – Land Acquisition Act -Once Company withdraw her intention to take the land acquired ,the very purpose of all procedure becomes infructuous including directions to refund of the amount – High court quashed the notifications as there is no emergency and with out hearing the objections of tenure holders under sec.5 A – directed to refund the amount – Apex court held that as the company by way of affidavit withdraw from taking lands due to non availability of Gas supply , In these circumstances no further question survives for consideration. We need not go into the question raised on behalf of the tenure holders that once the proceedings were vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power, such proceedings could not be revived The direction requiring the Collector to proceed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered infructuous. Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount from the Company and wanted to file objections were liable to refund the same and those who had no objection could seek exemption from refund failing which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears of land revenue also does not survive. Since notification under Section 6 of the Act could no longer be issued at this stage, the question of any tenure holder having or not having objection does not survive for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no purpose when notification under Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued. Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to any other remedy for the Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if any, from the Company in any other proceedings.= CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009] RELIANCE POWER LTD. …….. APPELLANT VERSUS BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ….. RESPONDENTS = 2014- Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41928

Sec.4.5 A and 6 -Section 17(1)/17(4) –  Land Acquisition Act -Once Company withdraw her intention to take the land acquired ,the very purpose of all procedure becomes infructuous including directions to refund of the amount – High court quashed the notifications as there is no emergency and with out hearing the objections of tenure holders under sec.5 A – directed to refund the amount – Apex court held that as the company by way of affidavit withdraw from taking lands due to non availability of Gas supply ,  In   these   circumstances   no   further   question   survives   for consideration.  We need not go into the question raised  on  behalf  of  the tenure holders  that  once  the  proceedings  were  vitiated  by  fraud  and colourable exercise of power, such proceedings  could  not   be  revived  The direction requiring the Collector to  proceed with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered  infructuous. Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount  from the Company and wanted to file objections were liable  to  refund  the  same and those who had no objection could  seek  exemption  from  refund  failing which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as  arrears of land revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under  Section  6

of the Act could no longer be issued at this  stage,  the  question  of  any tenure  holder  having  or  not  having  objection  does  not  survive   for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no  purpose when notification under Section 6 of  the  Act  can  no  longer  be  issued. Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.  In view of the above, the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  infructuous without prejudice to any  other  remedy  for  the  Company  to  recover  the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if  any,  from the Company in any other proceedings.=

High court – The  operative  part  of the order is as follows:-

“1.   The notification dated 11th February, 2004 under Section 4 of the  Act

is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and  mentions

the acquisition as an acquisition  for  “public  purpose”.   All  subsequent

proceedings  consequent  to  the  notification  dated  11th  February,  2004

including the notification  under  Section  6  dated  25th  June,  2004  are

quashed.

2.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in

continuation of the notification dated 11th February, 2004 and proceed  with

the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice

be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act

in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period

for filing objection.

3.    The notification under Section 4 dated 29th  August,  2006  is  partly

quashed insofar as it invokes Section 17(1)  and  17(4)  of  the  Act.   All

subsequent proceedings consequent to the  notification  dated  29th  August,

2006 including the notification under Section 6 dated  20th  February,  2007

are quashed.

4.    The Collector shall proceed with  the  inquiry  under  Section  5A  in

continuation of the notification dated 29th August, 2006  and  proceed  with

the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the  Act.   The  notice

be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A  of  the  Act

in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days  period

for filing objection.

5.    As a result of quashing of the notification dated 25th June, 2004  and

20th February, 2007, the petitioners are liable to refund  the  compensation

received from the respondents.  However, we provide that it  shall  be  open

for those tenure holders, who have  no  objection  to  the  acquisition,  to

indicate so in their objection to be filed under Section 5A in  which  event

they may seek exemption from the Collector for refunding  the  compensation.

The Collector shall proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of  the

Act of  only  those  tenure  holders  who  have  refunded  the  compensation

received by them.

6.    The Collector may recover the compensation as arrears of land  revenue

from the tenure holders who before the Collector do not in writing  indicate

their no objection with the acquisition.

7.    The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition and  hearing  of  the

objection under Section 5A of the Act shall be entitled to pass such  orders

and take such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to  refund/deposit

of the compensation.

8.    We further direct the Collector to get the  substance  of  this  order

published in all the leading newspapers, both  in  English  and  Hindi,  for

information to all concerned.”=

 But  before  pronouncement  of  the  judgment,  an

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to  surrender  all

rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated  11th

February, 2004 and 29th  August,  2006,  stating  that  on  account  of  the

difficulty in securing domestic natural gas  to  run  the  plant  which  was

sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise  the

land for the purpose for which the same was acquired.=

we  find

that the impugned judgment was rendered

on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been  granted  by  this  Court.   The

State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the  High  Court.

On  this  ground  itself,  proceedings  lapse  as  limitation  for   issuing

notifications under Section 6 of the Act or for making award in  respect  of

proceedings initiated vide notifications of Section  4   of  the  Act  dated

11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.

6.     In   these   circumstances   no   further   question   survives   for

consideration.  We need not go into the question raised  on  behalf  of  the

tenure holders  that  once  the  proceedings  were  vitiated  by  fraud  and

colourable exercise of power, such proceedings  could  not   be  revived  in

view of law laid down in  Vyalikaval  Housebuilding  Coop.  Society  vs.  V.

Chandrappa & Ors.[1], Greater Noida  Industrial  Development  Authority  vs.

Devendra Kumar & Ors.[2]. The direction requiring the Collector to  proceed

with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered  infructuous.

 Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount  from

the Company and wanted to file objections were liable  to  refund  the  same

and those who had no objection could  seek  exemption  from  refund  failing

which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as  arrears

of land revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under  Section  6

of the Act could no longer be issued at this  stage,  the  question  of  any

tenure  holder  having  or  not  having  objection  does  not  survive   for

consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no  purpose

when notification under Section 6 of  the  Act  can  no  longer  be  issued.

Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.

7.    In view of the above, the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  infructuous

without prejudice to any  other  remedy  for  the  Company  to  recover  the

amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if  any,  from

the Company in any other proceedings.

2014- Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41928
NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009]
RELIANCE POWER LTD. …….. APPELLANT

VERSUS

BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ….. RESPONDENTS
WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8819-8831 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.36616-36628 of 2009]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 832-8833 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.171-172 of 2010]
WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8834 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.1937 of 2010]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8835 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.29549 of 2010]

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8836-8839 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35239-35242 of 2012]
J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Leave granted. The interlocutory applications are allowed.
2. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated
by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[for short ‘the Act’]. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed
the two notifications Dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007
underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications under Section
4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and
29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause with
liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of objections under
Section 5A of the Act and with further direction as to refund of
compensation already received by the land owners. The operative part of
the order is as follows:-

“1. The notification dated 11th February, 2004 under Section 4 of the Act
is partly quashed to the extent it invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and mentions
the acquisition as an acquisition for “public purpose”. All subsequent
proceedings consequent to the notification dated 11th February, 2004
including the notification under Section 6 dated 25th June, 2004 are
quashed.

2. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry under Section 5A in
continuation of the notification dated 11th February, 2004 and proceed with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A of the Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days period
for filing objection.

3. The notification under Section 4 dated 29th August, 2006 is partly
quashed insofar as it invokes Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. All
subsequent proceedings consequent to the notification dated 29th August,
2006 including the notification under Section 6 dated 20th February, 2007
are quashed.

4. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry under Section 5A in
continuation of the notification dated 29th August, 2006 and proceed with
the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The notice
be issued by the Collector inviting objection under Section 5A of the Act
in newspaper having wide circulation by not giving less than 30 days period
for filing objection.

5. As a result of quashing of the notification dated 25th June, 2004 and
20th February, 2007, the petitioners are liable to refund the compensation
received from the respondents. However, we provide that it shall be open
for those tenure holders, who have no objection to the acquisition, to
indicate so in their objection to be filed under Section 5A in which event
they may seek exemption from the Collector for refunding the compensation.
The Collector shall proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of the
Act of only those tenure holders who have refunded the compensation
received by them.

6. The Collector may recover the compensation as arrears of land revenue
from the tenure holders who before the Collector do not in writing indicate
their no objection with the acquisition.

7. The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition and hearing of the
objection under Section 5A of the Act shall be entitled to pass such orders
and take such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to refund/deposit
of the compensation.

8. We further direct the Collector to get the substance of this order
published in all the leading newspapers, both in English and Hindi, for
information to all concerned.”

3. Though most of the appeals have been preferred by
M/s Reliance Power Ltd. [formerly known as Reliance Energy Generation Ltd.]
[for short ‘the Company’] at whose instance the land in question was sought
to be acquired, against part quashing of acquisition proceedings, some of
the land owners have also appealed to this Court with the grievance that
having held that the proceedings were initiated on the grounds of
illegality and fraud, the High Court ought to have quashed the acquisition
proceedings in entirety.

4. The appeals were heard and judgment reserved
on 6th August, 2014. But before pronouncement of the judgment, an
affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to surrender all
rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated 11th
February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006, stating that on account of the
difficulty in securing domestic natural gas to run the plant which was
sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise the
land for the purpose for which the same was acquired.
5. While we note the submissions made on behalf of the Company, we find
that the impugned judgment was rendered
on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been granted by this Court. The
State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the High Court.
On this ground itself, proceedings lapse as limitation for issuing
notifications under Section 6 of the Act or for making award in respect of
proceedings initiated vide notifications of Section 4 of the Act dated
11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.
6. In these circumstances no further question survives for
consideration. We need not go into the question raised on behalf of the
tenure holders that once the proceedings were vitiated by fraud and
colourable exercise of power, such proceedings could not be revived in
view of law laid down in Vyalikaval Housebuilding Coop. Society vs. V.
Chandrappa & Ors.[1], Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs.
Devendra Kumar & Ors.[2]. The direction requiring the Collector to proceed
with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered infructuous.
Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount from
the Company and wanted to file objections were liable to refund the same
and those who had no objection could seek exemption from refund failing
which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears
of land revenue also does not survive. Since notification under Section 6
of the Act could no longer be issued at this stage, the question of any
tenure holder having or not having objection does not survive for
consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no purpose
when notification under Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued.
Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.

7. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous
without prejudice to any other remedy for the Company to recover the
amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if any, from
the Company in any other proceedings.

8. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos………… of 2014
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of 2009 etc.),
this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms.

…………………………….J.
[ T.S. THAKUR ]

……………………………..J.
[ C. NAGAPPAN ]

………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
September 16, 2014

ITEM NO.1E-For Judgment COURT NO.14 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36425-36452/2009

RELIANCE POWER LTD.FORM.R.E.GENERAN.LTD. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

BABU SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)

WITH
SLP(C) No. 36616-36628/2009
SLP(C) No. 171-172/2010
W.P.(C) No. 304/2010
SLP(C) No. 1937/2010
SLP(C) No. 29549/2010
SLP(C) No. 35239-35242/2012

Date : 16/09/2014 These petitions were called on for JUDGMENT today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.
Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. A.V. Balan, Adv.
Mr. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.

Dr. Surat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.

Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.

Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,Adv.
Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon’ble Mr. Justice
C. Nagappan and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of as infructuous in terms of the
signed order.
Writ Petition (C) No.304 of 2010 is also disposed of in terms
of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
———————–
[1] (2007) 9 SCC 304
[2] (2011) 12 SCC 375

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,730,762 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,853 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com