1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 304-305 OF 2005
A.P. Industrial Infrastructure .....Appellant.
Corpn. Ltd.
Versus
Chinthamaneni Narasimha Rao & Ors. .....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 23rd July,
2001 in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 and Review W.A.M.P. No.
1822 of 2002 in Writ Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 dated 01st October,
2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad, these appeals have been filed by the original petitioners-
respondents herein, whose lands have been acquired by the State for a
public purpose.
2
2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as
under:
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (in short the `Act') was issued on 27th August, 1993 for
acquisition of land admeasuring 101 acres and 33 cents in and around
Eluru town for a public purpose for setting up an Auto Nagar so as to
develop the said land for industrial purpose. On 20th September, 1993
and 21st September, 1993, the said notification was published in two
daily newspapers whereas on 29th September, 1993 the substance of
the said notification was published in the locality where the land was
situated. Looking into the urgency, under the provisions of Section 17
of the Act, an inquiry under Section 5 A of the Act was dispensed
with. Thereafter notification with regard to the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 8th October, 1993. A Writ
Petition No. 5036 of 1994 was filed on 18th September, 1995
challenging the validity of the proceedings on the ground that the
provision of Section 17 of the Act could not have been invoked for
dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and in the
said petition, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed an interim
order whereby the authorities were restrained from taking possession
3
of the land in question. Ultimately the said petition was finally
disposed of on 18th September, 1995 whereby the declaration under
Section 6 had been quashed and it was directed to hold an enquiry
under Section 5A of the Act.
In pursuance to the above order passed by the High Court,
necessary enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was made, objections
were invited and ultimately it was decided to acquire only 54 acres
and 54 cents land out of the land in question admeasuring 101 acres
and 33 cents. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter
published on 7th August, 1996.
After making declaration under Section 6 of the Act, Award
was made on 7th January, 1998 and possession of the land in question
was taken on 9th March, 1998. After possession of land in question
was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer from the owners of the
land, on 16th July, 1998, the Land Acquisition Officer handed over
possession of the land in question to the present appellant-Corporation
for a public purpose, for which the land in question had been acquired.
It is pertinent to note that after declaration under Section 6 of
the Act made on 7th August, 1996 and after taking possession of the
4
land in question on 9th March, 1998, writ petition No. 32806 of 1998
was filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the
validity of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that
the declaration was not made within the period prescribed under
Section 6 of the Act.
By an order dated 27th August, 1999, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the aforesaid writ petition after recording the fact that
award was made on 7th January, 1998 and possession of the land in
question had been handed over to the present appellant on 9th March,
1998. Moreover, the learned Single Judge also held that the
declaration under Section 6 was made within the period stipulated
under Section 6 of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, the land
owners-the present respondents filed Writ Appeal no. 1337 of 1999.
The said Writ Appeal was allowed by an order dated 23rd July, 2001
whereby the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27th
August, 1999 was quashed and set aside as it was held by the Division
Bench of the High Court that the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of the
Act.
5
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, A.P.
Industrial Infrastucture Corporation- the present appellant filed a
Review petition being Review WAMP No. 1822 of 2002 in Writ
Appeal No. 1337 of 1999 on 29th August, 2001 which was also
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
judgment and order on 01st October, 2004.
3. Being aggrieved by the above judgment and orders passed by
the Division Bench of the High Court these appeals have been filed by
the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., which is an
undertaking owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh for whose
benefit the land in question had been acquired.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly made
two submissions: the first is with regard to the delay caused in filing
the petition or initiation of litigation challenging the validity of the
acquisition proceedings and the Second is with regard to delay caused
in making the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. According to
him the declaration was made within the period prescribed under
Section 6 of the Act.
6
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the land
owners supported the reasons given by the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court and submitted that the declaration under
Section 6 was made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of
the Act.
6. We have heard the learned counsel at great length. Several
judgments were cited by the learned counsel so as to substantiate their
cases. In our view there was substantial delay caused in filing the
petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the land
acquisition proceedings had been challenged by the land owners and,
therefore, we would not like to go into other reasons and other
submissions which pertain to delay causing making declaration under
Section 6 of the Act.
7. It is not in dispute that Notification under Section 4 of the Act
was issued on 27th August, 1993 and it was lastly published, in the
locality where the land is situated, on 29th September, 1993. We have
already referred to the earlier litigation and the objections filed by the
land owners and decision with regard to the land acquisition officer
and the Government Authorities for not acquiring the entire land,
7
which was sought to be acquired at an earlier stage. Ultimately the
land admeasuring 54 acres and 54 cents had been acquired out of the
land in question admeasuring 101 acres and 33 cents . It is not in
dispute that the Declaration under Section 6 was made on 7th August,
1996 and an award was made on 7th January, 1998. Though there is
some dispute with regard to the fact of taking possession of the land, it
is an admitted fact that atleast paper possession of the land in question
was taken on 9th March, 1998 and possession was handed over to the
appellant on 16th July, 1998.
8. Thus, it is an admitted fact that declaration under Section 6 of
the Act was made on 7th August, 1996 and the Award was made on 7th
January, 1998. A petition challenging the validity of the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that it was declared beyond
the period specified under Section 6 of the Act was filed in
November, 1998. In our opinion, the petition had been filed at a
belated stage. If the land owners were really aggrieved by the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, they ought to have challenged
the same immediately after the declaration under Section 6 was made.
For the reasons best known to them, they waited for more than two
years. Award was made on 7th January, 1998 and even possession was
8
taken on 9th March, 1998 and on 16th July, 1998, the possession was
also handed over to the present appellant so that it can use the land in
question for a public purpose for which it had been acquired.
9. The learned Single Judge duly recorded the fact that possession
of the land in question was taken from the land owners on 9th March,
1998.
10. We see no reason for the land owners to wait for a few years for
challenging the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on the
ground of delay. If the land owners had been really aggrieved, they
ought to have challenged the proceedings immediately after
declaration made under Section 6 of the Act.
11. This Court has held in several judgments that if the land owners
are aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, they must challenge the
same atleast before an award is made and the possession of the land in
question is taken by the government authorities.
It has been held in Swaika Propeties (P) Ltd. & Another vs.
State of Rajasthan & Others [(2008) 4 SCC 695] as under:
9
"6. This Court has repeatedly held that a writ petition
challenging the notification for acquisition of land, if filed
after the possession having been taken, is not maintainable.
In Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Industrial
Development Investment Co. (P) Ltd. (1996) 11 SCC 501
where K. Ramaswamy, J. speaking for a Bench consisting
of His Lordship and S.B. Majmudar, J. held: (SCC p. 520,
para 29)
"29. It is thus well-settled law that when there
is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and
when all steps taken in the acquisition
proceedings have become final, the Court
should be loath to quash the notifications. The
High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash
the notification under Section 4(1) and
declaration under Section 6. But it should be
exercised taking all relevant factors into
pragmatic consideration. When the award was
passed and possession was taken, the Court
should not have exercised its power to quash
the award which is a material factor to be taken
into consideration before exercising the power
under Article 226. The fact that no third-party
rights were created in the case is hardly a
ground for interference. The Division Bench of
the High Court was not right in interfering with
the discretion exercised by the learned Single
Judge dismissing the writ petition on the
ground of laches."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R.
Laxmi & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 445] following the decision of this
10
Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
(supra) it was held :
".... When the award was passed and possession was taken,
the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the
award which is a material factor to be taken into
consideration before exercising the power under Article
226. The fact that no third party rights were created in the
case, is hardly a ground for interference. The Division
Bench of the High Court was not right in interfering with
the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. ...."
To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in Municipal
Council, Ahmednagar & Another vs. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors. [(2000) 2
SCC 48] wherein this Court, following the decision of this Court in C.
Padma and Others vs. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. and Others
[(1997)2 SCC 627] held: (Shah Hyder case SCC p. 55, para 17)
"17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition
can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against
any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent
view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C.
Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N. [(1997) 2 SCC
627]...."
11
12. Therefore, we are not referring to the other judgments,
which have been cited by the learned counsel on the subject of validity of
declaration made under Section 6 of he Act for the reasons that we are
convinced that there was gross delay in challenging the validity of the
acquisition proceedings.
13. It is also pertinent to note that according to the appellant,
possession of the land in question had been handed over to the appellant-
Corporation on 16th July, 1998 and in view of the said fact, this Court had
granted interim stay in favour of the appellant on 10th January, 2005 and
an application made by the land owners for vacating the said stay had
been rejected and it was directed to maintain status quo.
14. Looking to the facts of the present case and in the light of the
law laid down by this Court, which has been referred to hereinabove, we
firmly believe that the petition filed by the land owners was at a belated
stage. For the said reason, we do not desire to interfere with the
acquisition proceedings, which had been challenged after more than two
years of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and on that ground alone
we feel that appeals deserve to be allowed.
12
15. The impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is quashed and set aside. The
appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
...............................................J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
..............................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
New Delhi
September 15, 2011.
