2005 (11) TMI 490 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity Of Notification regarding the acquisition of the land - whether the impugned Notification meets the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding giving brief description of land - award of additional 30 per cent amount as compensation - HELD THAT - In the present case in view of an order dated 3rd April,2002 passed by the High Court final compensation could not be determined by the competent Authority. Therefore, there could not be a valid deposit of amount finally determined as required u/s 3E(1) of the Act, which means the possession could not have been taken. But the fact is that possession was taken on 19th February, 2003 on deposit of provisional amount of compensation. The NHAI had in fact applied for permission of court to take possession of the land under acquisition. But without any order being passed on that application, it hastened to take possession after giving only one day's notice when the Act requires 60 days notice. Moreover, the possession is to be taken through the Commissioner of Police or the Collector. This was not done. Neither of the three statutory requirements for taking possession were fulfilled. Thus taking of possession of the lands in the present case is in total violation of the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the acquiring authority submits that possession was taken on basis of oral observations of the court. This is a totally misconceived plea. Court orders are always in black and white. Oral orders are never passed. Moreover, this plea is wrong because the Division Bench observed in its order dated 27th March,2003 that it never dealt with question of possession. The result is that taking possession of the land sought to be acquired cannot be said to be in accordance with law in this case and does not improve matters for the NHAI. Having held that the impugned notification regarding acquisition of land is invalid because it fails to meet the statutory requirements and also having found that taking possession of the land of the writ petitioners in the present case in pursuance of the said notification was not in accordance with law, the question arises as to what relief can be granted to the petitioners. The High Court rightly observed that the acquisition of land in the present case was for a project of great national importance, i.e. the construction of a national highway. The construction of national highway on the acquired land has already been completed as informed to us during the course of hearing. No useful purpose will be served by quashing the impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices of land, the amount of compensation payable to the land owners may be more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum of compensation payable to the land owners. Quashing of the notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as against the problems involved in quashing the impugned notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to compensate the land owners, that is, writ petitioners appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of justice persuade us to adopt this course of action. Normally, compensation is determined as per the market price of land on the date of issuance of the notification regarding acquisition of land. There are precedents by way of judgments of this Court where in similar situations instead of quashing the impugned notification, this Court shifted the date of the notification so that the land owners are adequately compensated. Accordingly appeals filed by the Competent Authority and the National Highways Authority of India are hereby dismissed while the appeal filed by Ridh Karan Rakecha Anr. allowed in terms of the above judgment. There shall be no order as to costs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956.
2. Adequacy of the description of the land in the Notification.
3. Delay in challenging the Notification.
4. Failure to file objections under Section 3C.
5. Filing of compensation claims by unauthorized persons.
6. Vesting of land in the Central Government.
7. Taking possession of the land.
8. Relief to be granted to the petitioners.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956:
The appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court regarding the compulsory acquisition of lands by the Central Government under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956. The High Court held the Notification to be bad in law but did not quash it, instead awarding additional compensation to the landowners. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the Notification was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.

2. Adequacy of the description of the land in the Notification:
The Notification was challenged on the ground that it did not provide a brief description of the land to be acquired, making it vague and insufficient. The Supreme Court observed that the description was inadequate, especially when only parts of larger tracts were being acquired, making it impossible for landowners to identify the land under acquisition or file objections. The absence of a site plan further compounded the issue, rendering the Notification invalid.

3. Delay in challenging the Notification:
The Competent Authority argued that the delay in filing the writ petition was fatal to the case of the landowners. However, the Supreme Court held that if the Notification violates the statute, the delay does not legitimize it. The writ petitioners had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the Supreme Court found no merit in the argument that the delay should bar the challenge.

4. Failure to file objections under Section 3C:
The Competent Authority contended that the failure to file objections under Section 3C within the prescribed time disqualified the writ petitioners from challenging the acquisition. The Supreme Court noted that Section 3C(1) confers a limited right to object only to the use of the land, not to the acquisition itself. Therefore, the failure to file objections did not affect the validity of the Notification.

5. Filing of compensation claims by unauthorized persons:
The Competent Authority argued that the writ petitioners had filed compensation claims, indicating their knowledge of the land details. The Supreme Court found that the claims were filed by unauthorized persons and were based on the material in the impugned Notification. This did not deprive the owners of their right to challenge the acquisition.

6. Vesting of land in the Central Government:
The Competent Authority argued that the land had vested in the Central Government, making the acquisition unchallengeable. The Supreme Court held that if the initial Notification is invalid, all subsequent steps, including vesting, are also invalid. The invalid Notification under Section 3A rendered the vesting of land unlawful.

7. Taking possession of the land:
The Supreme Court found that possession of the land was taken in violation of statutory provisions, including the requirement of depositing the final compensation amount and giving 60 days' notice. The possession taken without fulfilling these requirements was deemed unlawful.

8. Relief to be granted to the petitioners:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the national importance of the project and the completion of the highway construction. Quashing the Notification would lead to practical difficulties and only increase the compensation payable. Therefore, the Court directed that compensation be determined as of the date when possession was taken (19th February 2003) and paid to the writ petitioners expeditiously.

Conclusion:
The appeals by the Competent Authority and the National Highways Authority of India were dismissed, while the appeal by the writ petitioners was allowed. The compensation for the acquired land was to be determined as of 19th February 2003 and paid within the stipulated time, ensuring that the landowners were adequately compensated for their loss.