2003 (1) TMI 712 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in proceedings under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition filed by the respondents.
3. Delay and latches in filing the writ petition by the respondents.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to proceedings under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (the 1952 Act). The appellants' lands were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1971 and later acquired under Section 23(1) of the same Act. The appellants sought redetermination of compensation u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, relying on a Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Krishan Khosla's case. However, the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Hari Krishan Khosla held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not applicable to acquisitions under the 1952 Act. The Court reiterated that the 1952 Act is a self-contained code with distinct procedures for determining compensation, making Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act inapplicable.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the award dated 30th May 1988, arguing that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to acquisitions under the Defence of India Act or the 1952 Act. The appellants contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to delay and latches. However, the High Court set aside the Special Land Acquisition Collector's order, and the intra-court appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the respondents were aggrieved parties and had the right to challenge the award as it was based on a provision not applicable to the 1952 Act.

3. Delay and Latches:
The appellants argued that the respondents' writ petition should not have been entertained due to an eight-year delay. The Supreme Court noted that the question of delay and latches is primarily for the writ court to consider. Since the writ court exercised its jurisdiction despite the delay, the Supreme Court found no reason to set aside the High Court's order on this ground, especially when the judgment was legally sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act does not apply to proceedings under the 1952 Act. The writ petition filed by the respondents was maintainable, and the delay in filing did not warrant setting aside the High Court's judgment. There was no order as to costs.