9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 2041 - SC - Indian LawsRelease of the acquired land from acquisition proceedings - whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the landowners (VCHS-Respondent No. 1 herein) and, in consequence, was justified in issuing directions to the State in relation to the land in question? - Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - HELD THAT - Once it is held that the possession of the land in question was taken by the State in accordance with law on 30.05.2004 from the landowners, there are no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Section 48 of the Act were not applicable to the case at hand. In other words, once it is held that the possession of the acquired land was with the State, the land stood vested in the State disentitling the State to release the land from the acquisition proceedings by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act - A fortiori, the then Revenue Minister had no power to deal with the land in question in any manner whatsoever and nor had any power to invoke the provisions of Section 48 of the Act for release of the land in question from the clutches of the acquisition proceedings. The then Revenue Minister, who passed the order dated 10.06.2004 had no power to deal with the matter relating to release of the land in question. He simply usurped the power Under Section 48 of the Act, which he never possessed. It was an abuse of exercise of power by him while dealing with the State's largesse - the filing of the writ petition by the landowners itself was an abuse of judicial process. It was for the simple reason that the earlier litigation, which travelled up to this Court thrice having ended against the landowners, it was binding on the parties. It prevented the landowners to again raise the same issue. The High Court failed to examine the issues arising in the case in its correct perspective - Petition dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 25,000/- to be payable by Respondent No. 1 to the Appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's decision to allow the writ petition and direct the release of the acquired land. 2. Authority of the Revenue Minister to invoke Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Applicability of Section 48 after possession of the land has been taken. 4. Legal status of the order dated 10.06.2004 passed by the Revenue Minister. 5. Finality of previous litigation regarding the acquired land. 6. Compliance with legal procedures for taking possession of the acquired land. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the High Court's Decision: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the landowners (VCHS) and directing the State to release the remaining land from acquisition. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning and conclusion were legally unsustainable and perverse, thus deserving to be set aside. 2. Authority of the Revenue Minister: The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the then Revenue Minister had the power to invoke Section 48 of the Act for releasing the acquired land. The Court held that the Revenue Minister had no such power, especially after the State had taken possession of the land. The Minister's action was deemed an abuse of power. 3. Applicability of Section 48 After Possession: Section 48 of the Act allows the State to withdraw from the acquisition only if possession has not been taken. Since the State had taken possession of the land on 30.05.2000, the provisions of Section 48 were not applicable. The land vested in the State absolutely, free from all encumbrances, making any further release under Section 48 legally impossible. 4. Legal Status of the Order Dated 10.06.2004: The Supreme Court determined that the order dated 10.06.2004, which directed the release of the acquired land, did not have the attributes of a legal order under Section 48. It was merely a noting in the official files and was never communicated to the landowners. The order lacked legal sanctity and could not create any rights for the landowners. 5. Finality of Previous Litigation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the land's release had already attained finality in previous rounds of litigation, which had been decided against the landowners. The landowners were thus barred from raising the same issue again. The Court noted that the filing of the writ petition by the landowners was an abuse of judicial process. 6. Compliance with Legal Procedures for Taking Possession: The Court reviewed the procedures followed by the State in taking possession of the land and found them to be in compliance with the law as laid down in Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat and Ors. The possession was taken in the presence of witnesses, and the State's name was duly entered in the revenue records. This confirmed that the State had lawfully taken possession of the land. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the landowners with costs of ?25,000 to be paid to the appellant (PCNTDA). The Court held that the High Court had failed to examine the issues correctly and that the Revenue Minister had no authority to release the land from acquisition after possession had been taken.
|
