1995 (11) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether delay itself would be a ground to set aside the award? Whether respondent should be compensated considerably by awarding interest thereunder? Held that - If compensation was accepted without protest it binds such party but subject to Section 28A. Possession of the acquired land would be taken only by way of a memorandum Panchanama which is a legally accepted norm. It would not be possible to take any physical possession. Therefore subsequent continuation if any had by the erstwhile owner is only illegal or unlawful possession which does not bind the Government nor vested under Section 16 divested in the illegal occupant. Considered from this perspective we hold that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the award. Delay in making the first award is compensated by award of additional amount under Section 23(1A) and interest under Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 which has taken care to set off the delay in making the award. Under these circumstances the respondents are adequately compensated for loss if any for denial of enjoying the lands from the date of taking possession till date of deposit. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in making declaration under Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Validity of notification and declaration challenged in High Court
Exclusion of lands and alleged discrimination
Validity of possession and award under the Act
Compensation for delay in award and possession

Delay in making declaration under Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The case involved a delay in making a declaration under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1978, followed by a declaration under Section 6 in 1980. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force later. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award in 1986, with possession taken in the same year. Subsequently, a further award was made in 1990 for a specific survey number. The respondents challenged the validity of the notification and declaration in the High Court due to the delay in making the declaration.

Validity of notification and declaration challenged in High Court:
The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the notification and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act. The single Judge dismissed the writ petition initially, citing laches. However, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition based on the vagueness of the scheme and quashed the notification and declaration. The judgment of the Division Bench was later found unsustainable in light of a previous judgment by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court.

Exclusion of lands and alleged discrimination:
The respondents contended that their lands should have been excluded based on certain guidelines and previous exclusions made by the Government. They argued that the non-exclusion of their land amounted to discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power under the Act, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court noted the guidelines issued by the Government for exclusion of lands and the subsequent withdrawal of those guidelines due to misapplication and adverse effects on housing schemes. The Court found no justification to direct the Government to exclude the lands in question.

Validity of possession and award under the Act:
The Court examined the process of possession and award under the Land Acquisition Act. It clarified that the declaration under Section 6 gives conclusiveness to public purpose, and possession vests in the State under Section 16 free from encumbrances upon making the award. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the award, as the possession had already been undertaken, and the subsequent award did not invalidate the initial award.

Compensation for delay in award and possession:
The Court addressed the delay in making the award and possession, compensating for it under Section 23(1A) and Section 28 of the Act. The respondents were adequately compensated for the loss suffered due to the delay in enjoying the lands. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the single judge's order, allowing the appeals and dismissing the writ petitions while directing parties to bear their own costs.