Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (10) TMI 792

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssed the award on 20.6.1974 in respect of the said land, awarding compensation to the land owners i.e. respondent Nos. 1-5 herein, a sum of ₹ 3,93,688.12. The amount of compensation was also paid to the respondents on 16.10.1974 and the possession of the land was also taken on the same date. The respondents made an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District judge, Rohtak enhanced the compensation amount by a sum of ₹ 59,349. The respondents 1-5 not being satisfied with the enhanced amount of compensation, approached the High Court by filing an appeal. The High Court by judgment dated 2.6.1988 enhanced the compensation by an amount of ₹ 8.10 lakhs. The respondents filed Civil Writ Peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tate has also filed appeals challenging the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 7024 7025-7030 of 1993. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the State has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land acquired. He stated that this submission was made before the High Court also but, unfortunately, the same was not considered. It is not in dispute that the writ petition was filed almost after 17 years from the date of passing the award and after taking possession of land. There is no explanation for inordinate delay and laches except the statement made in para 8 of the writ petition to the effect, that although the possession of the land was taken 17 years back in 1973, the compensation was not paid fully and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dismissed on the ground of delay and laches if challenge is not made within a reasonable time. This Court has said that the petitioner cannot sit on the fence and allow the State to complete the acquisition proceedings on the basis that notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 were valid and then to attack the notifications on the grounds which were available to him at the time when these were published as otherwise it would be putting a premium on dilatory tactics. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [1996] II SCC 501, after reviewing the entire case law, this Court held that a person who approaches the court belatedly to question the legality .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to condone the delay and laches, in filing the writ petition. In our view, the High Court was also not right in ordering restoration of land to the respondents on the ground that the land acquired was not used for which it had been acquired. It is well-settled position in law that after passing the award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land vests with the Government free .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ensation having been paid to the claimant, he was not entitled to restitution of possession on the ground that either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for other purpose. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land. In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant company. We have to deal with one more contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1-5 that a different pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates