Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (7) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquisition proceedings. 2. Validity of the withdrawal of acquisition proceedings. 3. Delay and laches in challenging the acquisition. 4. Allegations of malafides against the Minister. Summary: 1. Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings: The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) for the extension of the market yard. The Court noted that the landowners and Mutha Associates did not file any objections during the planning and acquisition process despite multiple opportunities. The Court emphasized that the challenge to the acquisition was highly belated and barred by inordinate delay and laches. The Court cited the legal position from the Constitution Bench decision in *Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.* (1975) which held that challenges to acquisition proceedings must be timely and vigilant. 2. Validity of the Withdrawal of Acquisition Proceedings: The High Court quashed the order dated 20th May 1998, passed by the Minister directing the withdrawal of acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's findings that the withdrawal was invalid due to non-publication in the Official Gazette, non-observance of principles of natural justice, and arbitrary exercise of power. The Court reiterated that a proper notification in the Official Gazette is required for withdrawal u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, as established in *State of Maharashtra v. Umashankar Rajabhau* (1996) and *Larsen and Tourbo Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.* (1998). 3. Delay and Laches in Challenging the Acquisition: The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's decision that the challenge to the acquisition was barred by delay and laches. The Court noted that the planning process started in 1976, and the landowners did not object until much later. The Court emphasized that the legal position, as settled in *Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.* (1975), requires timely challenges to acquisition proceedings to avoid giving a premium on dilatory tactics. 4. Allegations of Malafides Against the Minister: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's finding of malafides against the Minister. The Court held that the allegations of malafides were not supported by specific particulars or sufficient proof. The Court emphasized that mere irregularities or procedural lapses do not constitute malafides without clear evidence of improper motive or bias. The Court cited the principles laid down in *State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma* (1992), *State of M.P. and Ors. v. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors.* (1986), and *E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.* (1974) regarding the high standard of proof required for allegations of malafides. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals No. 2853/2002, 2854/2002, and 2855/2002, upholding the acquisition proceedings and imposing costs of Rs. 5,00,000 on Mutha Associates. However, it allowed Civil Appeals No. 2856 and 2857 of 2002, reversing the High Court's finding of malafides against the Minister.
|