Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS._4345-4429_/2013 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 10230-10314/2012]

JAYAMMA & ORS. … APPELLANTS   

VERSUS

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.:

Leave granted.    

2. Whether  the  High  Court,  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution  of  India,  can  compel  the  State  to  

complete the acquisition proceedings initiated under  

Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the  

Act’),  is  one  of  the  short  questions  arising  for  

consideration in these cases.  Another short question  

is – Whether writ can be issued compelling the Land  

Acquisition  Collector/Officer  to  implement  the  

1

REPORTABLE

Page 2

instruction  issued  to  him  by  the  Government  

otherwise than under the procedure under the Act?   

SHORT FACTS

3. The  writ  petitioners/appellants  herein  having  their  

property  in  Mukundur  village,  Hassan  Taluk  in  

Karnataka  State  approached  the  High  Court  for  

following directions:  

“Issue  Writ  of  Mandamus  directing  Deputy  Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer to pass  the  award  as  per  the  directions  of  the  Principal  Secretary,  Revenue  Department,  Government  of  Karnataka and the decision of State Government  dated 19.11.2009.”

4. The  letter  dated  19.11.2009  from  the  Principal  

Secretary  to  Government,  Revenue  Department,  

addressed  to  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Hasan  

District, reads as under:  

“Sir, Sub:- Framing  award  in      respect  of  

Mukundooru,  Gaddebindenahalli  and  Chikkagondanahalli  villages  which  are  acquired as seepage affected villages at  Hassan District - Reg.

Ref:- Your Letter No. BhuSwaSa-150:2008-09  dated 11.09.2009.

With  regard  to  the  above  subject,  your  attention is attracted towards your letter. As it is  already decided in the order No. RD 120 REH 1992  

2

Page 3

dated  15.04.1999  to  shift  these  villages  with  regard  to  seepage,  due  to  Hemavathi  Irrigation  canal  project,  it  was  already  informed  in  the  earlier  letter  dated 16.03.1999 that,  there is  no  necessity to submit the same afresh before high  level  committee  presided  by  the  Regional  Commissioner  and  further  to  frame  award  in  respect of these villages.

In  furtherance,  it  is  clearly  ordered  by  the  Hon’ble Chief Minister to frame award with regard  to Mukundooru village and disburse compensation  amount, it is already informed in the letter dated  30.07.2009 bearing No. RD 113 BhuSwaHa 2009  to initiate action as per the said order. Wherefore,  I  am directed to inform you to initiate action as  already  directed  by  the  Governor  (sic  Government).”   

5. The  petitioners’  case  was  that  on  account  of  the  

seepage from the distributory canal of the reservoir,  

they  had  suffered  serious  damage  to  their  houses  

and,  on their  representations,  the Government had  

already taken a decision to acquire the property. The  

land acquisition officer, according to the petitioners,  

had  on  15.04.1999,  initiated  proceedings  under  

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and, thereafter,  

Section  6  Declaration  was  issued.  However,  the  

proceedings got lapsed since no award was passed  

within the period prescribed under Section 11A of the  

Act.  

3

Page 4

6. It  is  seen  as  per  Annexure-P2  –  Notification  dated  

27.10.2007, that the Land Acquisition Collector had  

initiated proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act  

for acquiring the lands of the petitioners and it was  

followed by Section 6 declaration dated 15.10.2008  

published  on  23.10.2008.   Since,  no  serious  steps  

were taken to  complete the acquisition by passing  

the  awards,  it  appears,  the  petitioners  approached  

the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution  

of India in 2011 for a direction to compel the land  

acquisition  collector  to  act  as  per  the  instruction  

issued  by  the  Government  and  to  complete  the  

acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge, by  

order dated 07.03.2011 disposed of the writ petitions  

directing the land acquisition collector and the State  

to pass awards in the case of the petitioners and a  

few others within four weeks from the receipt of the  

Order.   There was also a further direction that the  

petitioners should vacate the property if  they were  

still  in  possession  and  that  they  should  handover  

possession prior to the receipt of the compensation.  

4

Page 5

7. Aggrieved,  land  acquisition  collector,  State  and  

others  filed  Writ  Appeals  leading  to  the  impugned  

Judgment dated 09.12.2011.  It was contended that  

the  hardships  on  account  of  seepage  could  be  

resolved  by  constructing  ‘a  drainage  canal’  and  

acquisition for that reason was not necessary and not  

in  contemplation  also.  The  Judgment  of  the  Single  

Judge was set aside and the Appeals were disposed  

of  with the direction to complete the canal  project  

within  three  months.  It  was  also  clarified  that  the  

petitioners  were  free  to  initiate  appropriate  legal  

action  in  case  there  was  still  seepage.   Thus,  

aggrieved, the writ petitioners filed the Special Leave  

Petitions.  

8. Under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act,  the  

Collector is to pass the award under Section 11 within  

a period of two years from the date of the publication  

of  the  declaration  and,  in  case  no  award  is  made  

within  that  period,  the  entire  proceedings  for  

acquisition  of  the  land  would  lapse.  In  the  instant  

case,  the  declaration  under  Section  6  dated  

5

Page 6

15.10.2008  published  on  23.10.2008  had  already  

lapsed  by  the  time  the  writ  petitioners  had  

approached  the  High  Court.  This  crucial  factual  

position, unfortunately,  has not been taken note of  

by the High Court. The Court cannot compel the land  

acquisition collector to pass awards in respect of the  

land  acquisition  proceedings  which  had  already  

lapsed.  That  apart,  under  the  scheme of  the  Land  

Acquisition  Act,  the  Government  is  at  liberty  to  

withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which  

possession has not been taken at any stage prior to  

the  passing  of  the  award.  In  case  the  owner,  in  

consequence  of  such  withdrawal,  has  suffered  any  

damages,  he  is  entitled  to  compensation  in  that  

regard, under Section 48 of the Act, which reads as  

follows:

“48. Completion  of  acquisition  not  compulsory,  but  compensation  to  be  awarded  when  not  completed.-(1)  Except  in  the  case  provided  for  in  section  36,  the  Government shall  be at liberty to withdraw from  the acquisition of any land of which possession has  not been taken.

(2) Whenever the Government withdraws from any  such acquisition, the Collector shall determine the  amount  of  compensation  due  for  the  damage  

6

Page 7

suffered  by  the  owner  in  consequence  of  the  notice or of any proceedings thereunder, and shall  pay  such  amount  to  the  person  interested,  together with all costs reasonably incurred by him  in the prosecution of the proceedings under this  Act relating to the said land.

(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply,  so  far  as  may  be,  to  the  determination  of  the  compensation payable under this section.”

9. In the case on hand, there is no question of any such  

Notification on withdrawal since the proceedings had  

already lapsed. Admittedly, no possession had been  

taken. Therefore, Section 36 does not apply. Whether  

to  acquire  a  particular  property  or  not  is  for  the  

Government to decide. It is not within the jurisdiction  

of  the Court to compel  the Government to acquire  

any  property,  otherwise  than  as  per  the  Land  

Acquisition Act.  No doubt, the High Court exercises  

judicial  review of  administrative  action  or  inaction.  

But  having  regard  to  the  various  facts  and  

circumstances or factors, it is for the Government to  

consider  at  the  permissible  stage as  to  whether  a  

particular property is to be acquired or whether an  

Award  is  to  be  passed  pursuant  to  proceedings  

already initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act. The  

7

Page 8

Act is a complete code as far as such decisions are  

concerned  and  Government  is  well  within  their  

jurisdiction to act as per the scheme provided under  

the Act. Merely because proceedings under Section 4  

of the Land Acquisition Act has been initiated, it  is  

not required under law to acquire the land. It is not  

within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  to  compel  the  

Government  to  pass  an  Award  pursuant  to  

Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act even  

when it is followed by the declaration.  

10. Even  otherwise,  the  writ  petition  was  wholly  

misconceived. The prayer is for direction to the land  

acquisition collector to act in terms of letter issued to  

the land acquisition collector by the secretary to the  

Government.   If  a  subordinate  authority  in  the  

Government does not act in terms of the direction or  

instruction issued by the superior authority, it is not  

for the Court to compel that subordinate authority to  

comply with the instruction or direction issued by the  

superior authority, if it is not otherwise governed by a  

statutory procedure. Court is not the executing forum  

8

Page 9

of  the instruction issued by the Government  to  its  

subordinates.  That  jurisdiction lies  elsewhere under  

the scheme of  the Constitution.  Therefore,  on that  

count  also,  the  writ  petition  was  liable  to  be  

dismissed.  

11. Yet  with  all  these,  the  fact  remains  that  the  

residential  houses  of  the  petitioners  are  in  the  

seepage affected  area  in  Mukundur  village coming  

under 6th District Minor Hemavathi Left Bank Canal.  

Despite decades long efforts made by the petitioners,  

it  appears  even the  cement  concrete  lining  to  the  

canal  has been done only recently  and that  too in  

order  to  avoid  the  acquisition  for  which  twice  

notifications had already been issued.  It  has to  be  

noted that the agricultural land of the petitioners had  

already been acquired and what remained was only  

the  residential  part.  Petitioners  had  the  grievance  

that on account of the seepage, there was dampness  

resulting also in cracks on the building. In view of the  

miseries suffered by these poor persons, we are of  

the view that it will not be just and fair to relegate  

9

Page 10

them to workout their remedies before the civil court  

for damages, at this instance of time. Therefore, in  

the interests of justice and in order to do complete  

justice, we order that each of the petitioners shall be  

paid a lump sum amount of Re.1 lakh each towards  

damages  for  the  hardships  they  have  already  

undergone  on  account  of  seepage  resulting  in  

dampness and cracks to their  residential  buildings.  

The respondents  7/8  shall  see  that  the  amount  as  

above  is  deposited  in  the  bank  account  of  the  

respective  petitioner  within  three  months.  We,  

however, make it clear that this Judgment shall not  

stand in the way of the respondents, if so required or  

warranted in public interest,  acquiring the disputed  

lands.  

12. Subject to the above, the appeals are dismissed.  No  

costs.

                               ………………………………J. (G.S. SINGHVI)

                               ………………………………J.

1

Page 11

(KURIAN JOSEPH)

New Delhi; May 6, 2013.  

1