9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Land Acquisition Officer's decision not to pass an award for C.T.S.No. 218. 2. Validity of the settlement between BEST and the interested parties. 3. Allegations of malafides in the acquisition process. 4. Procedural diligence and conduct of the appellant. Summary: 1. Legality of the Land Acquisition Officer's Decision: The appellant contended that once a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for both C.T.S.No. 218 and C.T.S.No. 211, the Land Acquisition Officer was bound to pass an award for both lands. The officer's failure to pass an award for C.T.S.No. 218, based on a private settlement, was argued to be illegal. The Supreme Court agreed that the officer had no jurisdiction to exclude C.T.S.No. 218 without a notification u/s 48. However, the Court held that this procedural error did not invalidate the acquisition of C.T.S.No. 211, as the public purpose behind its acquisition remained intact. 2. Validity of the Settlement: The appellant argued that the settlement between BEST and the interested parties, which resulted in BEST obtaining only 906 sq.mtrs. of C.T.S.No. 218, indicated that the public purpose was not genuine. The Supreme Court presumed the settlement was made in good faith to advance BEST's interests, noting that BEST obtained the land and a bus station free of cost. The Court found no evidence that the public purpose stated in the notification was not real. 3. Allegations of Malafides: The appellant alleged that the acquisition was driven by malafides, aiming to benefit the promoters of the Gayatri Darshan Cooperative Housing Society. The Supreme Court found no material evidence to support the claim that the acquisition was influenced by the housing society or Vijayanand Singh. The Court also dismissed the relevance of the change of user in the development plan to the plea of malafides. 4. Procedural Diligence and Conduct of the Appellant: The appellant's writ petition, pending since 1986, was dismissed by the High Court due to lack of diligence. The appellant's counsel had reported "no instructions," leading to the dismissal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the appellant had not challenged the acquisition from 1979 to 1986 and only did so after the award was passed. The Court emphasized the need for courts to consider public interest in land acquisition cases and suggested alternative relief methods rather than quashing acquisition proceedings. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the acquisition of C.T.S.No. 211 and rejecting the appellant's contentions. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing public and private interests in land acquisition cases and urged courts to consider larger public interests while exercising their discretionary powers. No order as to costs was made.
|
