2013 (3) TMI 310 - SC - Indian Laws

Land Acquisition - She had never been aware of the acquisition proceedings and she was not served with notice She got the information first time that she was in illegal possession she was directed to demolish the structure put up by her - The Court has given liberty to the appellant to move an application for making reference within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the Land Acquisition Collector to make a reference, if such an application is filed within a period of four weeks thereafter, and the Court further directed the Tribunal to decide the reference within a period of three months from the date of its receipt. The only question remains for our consideration is as to whether the provisions of notice are mandatory in nature and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the Award and subsequent proceedings - Held that - we are not in a position to examine the correctness of that submission or making any observation regarding the law of limitation for the purpose of making reference. This question is left open. Thus in accordance with the provision of notice the Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, the Writ Court rejected the contentions raised by the appellant after being fully satisfied that the notice under provision of notice was affixed on the part of the land in dispute as the appellant was not available. Similarly Submissions have been made on behalf of the respondents that as the Court lacks competence to extend the period of limitation, direction issued by the High Court giving liberty to the appellant herein to make an application for making reference is without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed as decided in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal & Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 269; and many others.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act.
3. Delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings.
4. The mandatory or directory nature of Section 9(3).
5. The High Court's competence to extend the period of limitation for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellant challenged the Award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming non-service of notice under Section 9(3). The Supreme Court noted that the land acquisition process included a Notification under Section 4 and a Declaration under Section 6, which were duly published. Once the Award was made and possession taken, the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances, and it could not be divested even if some irregularity was found in the Award. The Court emphasized that the appellant's land was a negligible area compared to the total land acquired, and the acquisition proceedings could not be disturbed at the behest of one person.

2. Non-service of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act:
The appellant argued that she was not served with a notice under Section 9(3) and was unaware of the acquisition proceedings. The respondents contended that the notice was affixed on the land as the appellant was not available. The Supreme Court observed that even if the notice under Section 9(3) was not served, it would not adversely affect the subsequent proceedings, including the Award and the title of the government in the acquired land. The Court noted that the appellant could still claim compensation and ask for a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

3. Delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings:
The appellant challenged the acquisition proceedings and the Award after a decade of taking possession of the land. The Supreme Court found it difficult to presume that the appellant had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings, considering the large area of land acquired and the publicity given to the Notification and Declaration. The Court referred to the case of Swaran Lata Vs. State of Haryana, where it was held that acquisition proceedings could not be challenged at a belated stage.

4. The mandatory or directory nature of Section 9(3):
The appellant argued that non-compliance with Section 9(3) would vitiate the Award. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 9(3) was mandatory or directory. It referred to several judgments and concluded that the provision was directory. The Court noted that the scheme of the Act did not cause any prejudicial consequence if the notice under Section 9(3) was not served. The Court emphasized that the intent of the legislature, the context, and the purpose of the provision should be considered to determine its mandatory or directory nature.

5. The High Court's competence to extend the period of limitation for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act:
The High Court had given liberty to the appellant to move an application for making a reference under Section 18 within a specified period. The respondents argued that the High Court lacked competence to extend the period of limitation. The Supreme Court did not examine this submission as the respondents had not challenged the impugned Judgment. The Court left the question of the law of limitation for making a reference open.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the High Court and the Appellate Court. The Court reiterated that the appellant's challenge to the acquisition proceedings was time-barred and that the non-service of notice under Section 9(3) did not invalidate the Award or subsequent proceedings. The Court also noted that the appellant should have pursued the remedy provided by the High Court to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

← Previous Next →