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
advocatemmmohan 
Discussion
Comments are closed.