1995 (8) TMI 320 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed in view of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Whether the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 constituted an award under the Act.
3. Whether the Society is entitled to relief despite initiating alternate proceedings.

Summary:

Issue 1: Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings u/s 11-A
The appellants contended that the land acquisition proceedings lapsed as no award was made within two years from the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, as mandated by Section 11-A. The Court held that this plea had no force since the Government had taken possession of the land under Section 17(1) of the Act. It was noted that once possession is taken, the Government cannot withdraw from the acquisition (Section 48), and Section 11-A is not applicable. The Court cited the precedent in Stander Prasad Jain vs. State of U.P., stating that Section 11-A does not apply to acquisitions under Section 17, as the land vests in the Government upon possession.

Issue 2: Validity of Proceedings Dated 31.7.1984 as an Award
The appellants argued that the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 were not an award since they were not in Form 15 and unsigned. The Court disagreed, holding that the proceedings, though not in Form 15, constituted an award as they were signed by the District Land Acquisition Officer and contained all requisites of an award. The High Court's direction to sign and complete the award in terms of the earlier order was justified under Article 215, and the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 were deemed an award under Section 12 of the Act.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Relief Despite Alternate Proceedings
The appellants contended that the Society should not be granted relief as it had initiated alternate proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and a title suit. The Court found this plea without merit, distinguishing the case from Jai Singh vs. Union of India. The Court noted that the writ petition sought to enforce the earlier judgment in CWJC No. 3241/82, which directed the completion of the acquisition proceedings. The relief sought was not merely to remove encroachments but to implement the Court's previous orders. The High Court was justified in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to ensure compliance with its earlier directions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse, the proceedings dated 31.7.1984 constituted an award, and the Society was entitled to relief. The Court expressed distress over the prolonged delay in the acquisition process and directed the State of Bihar and its officials to complete the proceedings expeditiously. The appellants were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- in each appeal towards the Advocate's fees for the Society.