Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of  

2009]

RELIANCE POWER LTD.                                 …….. APPELLANT

VERSUS

BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.               ….. RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8819-8831 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.36616-36628 of 2009]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 832-8833 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.171-172 of 2010]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8834 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.1937 of 2010]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.8835 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.29549 of 2010]

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8836-8839 OF 2014 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35239-35242 of 2012]

Page 2

2

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Leave  granted.    The  interlocutory  applications  are  

allowed.  

2. These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  land  acquisition  

proceedings initiated by the State of U.P. under the provisions  

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’].  By the  

impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  quashed  the  two  

notifications  Dated  25th June,  2004 and  20th February,  2007  

underSection  6  of  the  Act  and  partly  quashed  notifications  

under    Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and  

29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause  

with  liberty  to  the  State  to  proceed  with  the  hearing  of  

objections  under  Section  5A  of  the  Act  and  with  further  

direction as to refund of compensation already received by the  

land owners.  The operative part of the order is as follows:-

“1. The notification dated 11th February, 2004 under  Section 4 of the Act is partly quashed to the extent it   invokes  Section  17(1)/17(4)  and  mentions  the  acquisition as an acquisition for “public purpose”.  All   subsequent  proceedings  consequent  to  the  notification dated 11th February,  2004 including the  notification under Section 6 dated 25th June, 2004 are

Page 3

3

quashed.

2. The  Collector  shall  proceed  with  the  inquiry   under Section 5A in continuation of  the notification   dated  11th February,  2004  and  proceed  with  the  proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the   Act.   The notice be issued by the Collector inviting  objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper  having  wide  circulation  by  not  giving  less  than  30   days period for filing objection.

3. The  notification  under  Section  4  dated  29th  August, 2006 is partly quashed insofar as it invokes   Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act.  All subsequent  proceedings consequent to the notification dated 29th  August, 2006 including the notification under Section  6 dated 20th February, 2007 are quashed.

4. The  Collector  shall  proceed  with  the  inquiry   under Section 5A in continuation of  the notification   dated  29th August,  2006  and  proceed  with  the  proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the   Act.   The notice be issued by the Collector inviting  objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper  having  wide  circulation  by  not  giving  less  than  30   days period for filing objection.

5. As a result of quashing of the notification dated  25th June,  2004  and  20th February,  2007,  the  petitioners  are  liable  to  refund  the  compensation   received from the respondents.  However, we provide  that it  shall  be open for those tenure holders, who   have no objection to the acquisition, to indicate so in   their objection to be filed under Section 5A in which   event they may seek exemption from the Collector   for refunding the compensation.  The Collector shall   proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of   the  Act  of  only  those  tenure  holders  who  have   refunded the compensation received by them.

6. The Collector may recover the compensation as   arrears of land revenue from the tenure holders who  before the Collector do not in writing indicate their no   objection with the acquisition.

7. The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition   and hearing of the objection under Section 5A of the   Act  shall  be entitled  to  pass  such orders  and take  such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to   refund/deposit of the compensation.

Page 4

4

8. We  further  direct  the  Collector  to  get  the  substance of this order published in all  the leading   newspapers,  both  in  English  and  Hindi,  for   information to all concerned.”

3. Though  most  of  the  appeals  have  been  preferred  by   

M/s Reliance Power Ltd.  [formerly known as Reliance Energy  

Generation Ltd.] [for short ‘the Company’] at whose instance  

the land in question was sought to be acquired, against part  

quashing of acquisition proceedings, some of the land owners  

have  also  appealed  to  this  Court  with  the  grievance  that  

having held that the proceedings were initiated on the grounds  

of illegality and fraud, the High Court ought to have quashed  

the acquisition proceedings in entirety.

4. The  appeals  were  heard  and  judgment  reserved   

on  6th August,  2014.   But  before  pronouncement  of  the  

judgment, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company  

seeking to surrender all rights in respect of the land covered by  

the  above  notifications  dated  11th February,  2004  and  29th  

August,  2006,  stating  that  on  account  of  the  difficulty  in  

securing  domestic  natural  gas  to  run  the  plant  which  was  

sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to  

utilise  the  land  for  the  purpose  for  which  the  same  was

Page 5

5

acquired.

5. While  we note the submissions  made on behalf  of  the  

Company, we find that the impugned judgment was rendered  

on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been granted by this  

Court.   The  State  has  not  chosen to  challenge the  findings  

recorded by the High Court.  On this ground itself, proceedings  

lapse as limitation for issuing notifications under Section 6 of  

the Act or for making award in respect of proceedings initiated  

vide notifications of Section 4  of the Act dated 11th  February,  

2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.

6. In these circumstances no further question survives for  

consideration.   We need not  go into  the question raised on  

behalf of the tenure holders that once the proceedings were  

vitiated  by  fraud  and  colourable  exercise  of  power,  such  

proceedings could not  be revived in view of law laid down in  

Vyalikaval  Housebuilding  Coop.  Society vs.  V.  

Chandrappa  &  Ors.  1  , Greater  Noida  Industrial  

Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.  2  .  The  

direction requiring the Collector to proceed with the enquiry  1  (2007) 9 SCC 304 2  (2011) 12 SCC 375

Page 6

6

under Section 5A of  the Act has been rendered infructuous.  

Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any  

amount from the Company and wanted to file objections were  

liable to refund the same and those who had no objection could  

seek exemption from refund failing which the Collector could  

recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears of land  

revenue also does not survive.  Since notification under Section  

6  of  the  Act  could  no  longer  be  issued  at  this  stage,  the  

question of any tenure holder having or not having objection  

does not survive for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A  

of  the  Act  could  serve  no  purpose  when  notification  under  

Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued.  Direction of the  

High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.

7. In  view  of  the  above,  the  appeals  are  disposed  of  as  

infructuous  without  prejudice  to  any  other  remedy  for  the  

Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure  

holders to claim damages, if  any, from the Company in any  

other proceedings.

8. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010

In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos…......... of  

2014  (arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition  (C)  Nos.36425-

Page 7

7

36452 of 2009 etc.),  this writ petition is also disposed of in the  

same terms.

…………………………….J. [ T.S. THAKUR ]

……………………………..J. [ C. NAGAPPAN ]

………………………………..J. NEW DELHI                [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ] September  16, 2014

Page 8

8

ITEM NO.1E-For Judgment   COURT NO.14         SECTION XI                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  36425- 36452/2009 RELIANCE POWER LTD.FORM.R.E.GENERAN.LTD.     Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS BABU SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC.                    Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36616-36628/2009  SLP(C) No. 171-172/2010  W.P.(C) No. 304/2010  SLP(C) No. 1937/2010  SLP(C) No. 29549/2010  SLP(C) No. 35239-35242/2012   Date : 16/09/2014 These petitions were called on for  JUDGMENT today.

For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.                                            Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.                      Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.                      Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.                      Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv. For Respondent(s)

   Mr. A.V. Balan, Adv.     Mr. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.     Dr. Surat Singh, Adv.     Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Adv.     Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.

                    Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.                                           Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.                      Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.

                       Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,Adv.                          Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.                      

Page 9

9

       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  T.S.  Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The appeals are disposed of as infructuous in terms  

of the signed order. Writ Petition (C) No.304 of 2010 is also disposed of  

in terms of the signed order.        (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)