Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6792          OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19869 of 2008)

M/s V.K.M. Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd.      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.                              .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order  

dated  08.07.2008  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  

Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 13208 of 2007 whereby  

the  High  Court  dismissed  the  petition  filed  by  M/s  V.K.M.  

Kattha Industries Pvt. Ltd.-the appellant-Company.

3) Brief Facts:

(a) The appellant-Company is an industrial unit engaged in  

manufacturing of kattha for various tobacco and non-tobacco  

1

Page 2

products,  having its  office at  Janti  Kalan Road, Post Office  

Kundli, District Sonipat.  Vide sale deed dated 10.05.1994,  

the appellant-Company purchased a running industrial unit  

comprised  in  Rect.  No.  75,  Khasra  No.  25,  Rect.  No.  80,  

Khasra Nos. 5/1 and 6/2 total measuring 23 kanals 14 marlas  

and got it registered as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the  

Director, Industries Department,  Haryana.  On 05.05.2003,  

the appellant-Company leased out the running industrial unit  

to one M/s Anand Agro Products.   

(b) On  21.12.2005,  Haryana  Government  Industries  

Department issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land  

Acquisition Act,  1894 (in  short  ‘the Act’)  for  acquisition of  

certain lands situated in Village Kundli and Village Sirsa for a  

public purpose, namely, for the development of a Industrial  

Estate and the lands belonging to the appellant  Company  

were covered in the said notification.  The declaration under  

Section 6 of the Act was subsequently made on 29.12.2006  

and the award was announced on 15.07.2007.  

(c) Being aggrieved by the notifications dated 21.12.2005  

and 29.12.2006, the appellant-Company preferred CWP No.  

2

Page 3

13208  of  2007  before  the  High  Court.   By  order  dated  

08.07.2008, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

(d) Being aggrieved of the same,  the appellant-Company  

has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this  

Court.

4) Heard Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel  

for  the  appellant-Company,  Mr.  Manjit  Singh,  learned  

Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.    

Contentions:

5) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant-Company submitted as under:- (i) The notification  

under  Section  4  (1)  of  the  Act  was  not  published  in  the  

locality  wherein  the  land  situate  which  prevented  the  

appellant-Company from making objection under Section 5A  

of the Act.  (ii)  As the appellant-Company itself is a running  

industry on the date of the notification, the said land cannot  

be  acquired  for  a  public  purpose,  namely,  for  the  

development  of  Industrial  Estate.   (iii)  The  High  Court  

committed an error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the  

appellant-Company herein on the ground that the same is  

3

Page 4

not  maintainable  after  the  announcement  of  award,  

particularly, when the appellant-Company failed to file any  

objection under Section 5A of the Act.  The decisions of this  

Court relied on by the High Court are not applicable to the  

facts of this case and are distinguishable.  (v) Inasmuch  as  

the respondent-State itself has excluded more than 76 acres  

of land and the appellant is running an industry even as on  

date, it ought to have excluded and such exclusion would not  

affect the execution of the Scheme.   

6) On the other hand, Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional  

Advocate  General  appearing  for  the  State  of  Haryana  

submitted that inasmuch as the land acquisition authorities  

have  complied  with  all  the  formalities,  the  appellant-

Company failed to file objection under Section 5A of the Act  

and the writ petition having been filed in the High Court after  

passing  of  the  award,  the  High  Court  is  fully  justified  in  

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Company.   

7) We have carefully considered the rival contentions and  

perused all the relevant materials.

4

Page 5

Discussion:  

8) Coming to the contention of learned senior counsel for  

the appellant about the dismissal of the writ petition by the  

High Court on the ground that the same has been filed after  

passing of the award, it is brought to our notice that all the  

four cases relied on by the High Court are inapplicable to the  

facts of the present case.  The first decision relied on by the  

High Court is Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana  

& Ors., (1996) 11 SCC 698.  In that case, notification under  

Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  was  published  in  the  Gazette  on  

01.06.1976,  award  was  passed  on  03.07.1981  and  the  

aggrieved parties filed writ petition in the High Court only on  

21.01.1994, i.e. after 13 years.  Second decision relied on by  

the High Court in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr.  

vs.  Shah Hyder Beig & Ors., (2000)  2  SCC 48 wherein  

notification under Section 4(1) was published on 15.05.1971,  

award was passed on 26.04.1976 and the writ petition came  

to be filed on 21.10.1992, i.e.,  21 years after  the date  of  

notification.  Third decision relied on by the High Court is C.  

5

Page 6

Padma & Ors. vs. Dy. Secretary to the Government of  

Tamil Nadu & Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 627 wherein notification  

under Section 4(1) was published on 17.10.1962, acquisition  

proceedings  became  final  and  possession  was  taken  on  

30.04.1964, compensation was paid and accepted and writ  

petition was filed after 32 years.  The last decision relied on  

by the High Court is Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs.  

State  of  Rajasthan & Ors., (2008)  4  SCC  695  wherein  

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on  

08.02.1984, possession was taken on 17.02.1987 and writ  

petition came to be filed on 10.03.1989.  It  is relevant to  

point out that the writ  petition came to be filed after  two  

years that too after taking over possession.

9) In the case on hand, notification under Section 4(1) of  

the Act was published in the official gazette on 21.12.2005,  

declaration  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  was  issued  on  

29.12.2006  and  the  award  was  passed  on  15.07.2007.  

Challenging the said award, a writ petition was filed by the  

appellant-Company on 20.08.2007, i.e. within 5 weeks of the  

passing of the award.  It is the assertion of the appellant-

6

Page 7

Company that possession of the said land is still vested with  

them.  Taking note of the above factual scenario and of the  

fact that in the decisions relied on by the High Court, there  

was a huge delay in filing the writ petitions, such as 13 years,  

21 years, 32 years and 2 years after taking over possession,  

hence, in the light of the fact that the appellant-Company  

has filed the writ petition within a reasonable time, namely,  

within 5 weeks of the passing of the award,  we are of the  

view that all the 4 decisions referred to and relied on by the  

High Court are inapplicable to the facts of the present case.  

On this ground itself, the impugned order dismissing the writ  

petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we hold that the  

Writ  Petition filed by the appellant  herein before the High  

Court cannot be simply dismissed on the ground of delay or  

laches or filed after passing of the award.  The said issue  

depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and  

in view of the fact that  the appellant has approached the  

High Court within a reasonable time, it is but proper for the  

High Court to go into the merits of the claim of the appellant.  

In normal circumstance, the matter has to go back to the  

7

Page 8

High  Court  for  consideration  of  various  points  raised,  

however, in order to shorten the litigation and of the fact that  

necessary/required materials are available before this Court,  

we consider the case of both the parties on merits and give  

our reasons hereunder.

10) Regarding  the  contention  relating  to  publication  of  

notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, it is the claim of  

the appellant that since the same was not in accordance with  

the mandate provided in the Statute, the appellant-Company  

was  not  at  all  in  a  position  to  file  their  objection  under  

Section 5A of the Act.   

11) In  order  to  answer  the  above  claim,  it  is  better  to  

understand the Scheme of the Act and the benefits given to  

the land owners for which it is desirable to extract Sections 4,  

5A and 6 of the Act which are as under:

“4. Publication  of  preliminary  notification  and  powers  of  officers  thereupon.—(1)  Whenever  it  appears to the appropriate Government that land in any  locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public  purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall  be  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  and  in  two  daily  newspapers  circulating  in  that  locality  of  which  at  least  one shall  be in the regional  language, and the Collector  shall  cause  public  notice  of  the  substance  of  such  notification to be given at convenient  places in the said  locality (the last of the dates of such publication and the  

8

Page 9

giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to  as the date of the publication of the notification). (2)  Thereupon  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  officer,  either  generally  or specially authorised by such Government in  this behalf, and for his servants and workmen,—

to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in  such locality; to dig or bore into the subsoil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the  

land is adapted for such purpose; to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be  

taken and the intended line of the work (if any) proposed  to be made thereon;

to  mark  such  levels,  boundaries  and  line  by  placing  marks and cutting trenches; and,

where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and  the levels taken and the boundaries and line marked, to  cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop,  fence or jungle: Provided that  no person shall  enter  into  any building or  

upon  any enclosed court  or  garden  attached to  a  dwelling  house  (unless  with  the  consent  of  the  occupier  thereof)  without previously giving such occupier at least seven days’  notice in writing of his intention to do so.

5A. Hearing of objections.—(1) Any person interested in  any land which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section  (1),  as  being  needed  or  likely  to  be  needed  for  a  public  purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  notification,  object  to  the  acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the  case may be.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to  the  Collector  in  writing,  and  the  Collector  shall  give  the  objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any  person authorised by him in this  behalf  or  by pleader  and  shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such  further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a  report in respect of the land which has been notified under  Section  4,  sub-section  (1),  or  make  different  reports  in  respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate  Government,  containing  his  recommendations  on  the  objections, together with the record of the proceedings held  by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of  the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final.

9

Page 10

(3)  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  a  person  shall  be  deemed to  be interested in  land who would  be entitled  to  claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired  under this Act.

6. Declaration  that  land  is  required  for  a  public   purpose.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act,  when  the  appropriate  Government  is  satisfied,  after  considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub- section  (2),  that  any particular  land is  needed for  a  public  purpose, or for  a company,  a declaration  shall  be made to  that  effect  under  the  signature  of  a  Secretary  to  such  Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its  orders, and different declarations may be made from time to  time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the  same  notification  under  Section  4,  sub-section  (1),  irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or  have been made (wherever required) under Section 5-A,  sub-section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular  land covered by a notification  under Section 4,  sub-section  (1)—

(i) published  after  the  commencement  of  the  Land  Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of  1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition  (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three  years from the date of the publication of the notification; or  

(ii)  published  after  the  commencement  of  the  Land  Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,  1984,  shall  be  made  after  the  expiry  of  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  notification:  Provided further  that no such declaration shall  be made  

unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is  to be paid by a company, or wholly  or partly  out  of  public  revenues  or  some  fund  controlled  or  managed  by  a  local  authority.

Explanation 1.—In computing any of the periods referred to in  the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding  to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under Section 4,  sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.

Explanation  2.—Where  the  compensation  to  be  awarded  for  such property is to be paid out of the funds of a corporation owned  or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to  be compensation paid out of public revenues.

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette,  and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the  land  is  situate  of  which  at  least  one  shall  be  in  the  regional  

10

Page 11

language,  and  the  Collector  shall  cause  public  notice  of  the  substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in  the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the  giving of such public notice,  being hereinafter referred to as the  date of  the publication of  the declaration),  and such declaration  shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land  is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area,  and,  where a plan shall  have been made of  the land,  the place  where such plan may be inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that  the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as  the  case  may  be;  and,  after  making  such  declaration,  the  appropriate  Government  may  acquire  the  land  in  manner  hereinafter appearing.”

12) Among  the  above  provisions,  Section  4  of  the  Act  

empowers  the  appropriate  Government  to  initiate  

proceedings for the acquisition of land.  Section 4(1) of the  

Act lays down that whenever it appears to the appropriate  

Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to  

be needed for any public purpose or for a company, then a  

notification to that effect is required to be published in (i) the  

Official Gazette; (ii) two daily newspapers having circulation  

in  that  locality  of  which,  one  shall  be  in  the  regional  

language;  and (iii)  it  is also incumbent  on the part  of the  

Collector  to  cause  public  notice  of  the  substance  of  such  

notification to be given at convenient places in the locality.  It  

is  relevant  to  mention  that  the  last  of  the  dates  of  such  

publication and the giving of such public notice is treated as  

11

Page 12

the date of the publication of the notification.  In terms of  

Section 4(2),  any officer  authorized by the Government  in  

this behalf and his servants or workmen can enter upon and  

survey and take levels of any land in such  locality, dig or  

bore into the subsoil and can do all other acts necessary for  

ascertaining  that  the  land  is  suitable  for  the  purpose  of  

acquisition.   The  officers  concerned  can  set  out  the  

boundaries  of  the  land  proposed  to  be  acquired  and  the  

intended line of the work, if any, proposed to be made on it.  

They are also permitted to mark such levels, boundaries and  

lines  by  placing  marks  and  cutting  trenches  and  can  cut  

down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or  

jungle for the same purpose.  However, neither the officer  

nor his servants or workmen can enter into any building or  

upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling  

house without  the  consent  of  the  occupier  and previously  

giving such occupier at least 7 days notice in writing of their  

intention to do so.  

13) In terms of Section 5A,  any person interested in  any  

land notified under Section 4(1) may, within 30 days from the  

12

Page 13

date  of  publication  of  the  notification,  submit  objection in  

writing against  the  proposed acquisition of  land or  of any  

land in the locality to the Collector.  Thereafter, the Collector  

is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard  

either in person or by any person authorized by him or by his  

pleader.   After  hearing  the  objections  and  making  such  

further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector shall  

make a report in respect of the land notified under Section  

4(1) containing his recommendations on the objections and  

forward the same to the Government along with the record of  

the proceedings held by him.  It is open to the Collector to  

make different reports in respect of different parcels of land  

proposed to be acquired.

14) Keeping the above principles in mind, let  us consider  

the first submission made by learned senior counsel for the  

appellant-Company  viz.,  the  notification  was  not  in  

consonance with the requirements laid down under Section  

4(1) of the Act.  Learned senior counsel for the appellant-

Company argued before this Court that  in the light of the  

language used under Section 4(1) of the Act, all  the three  

13

Page 14

modes of publication mentioned therein are mandatory.  He  

further asserted that since the notification was not published  

at the conspicuous places of the locality concerned, neither  

the  lessee  of  the  appellant-Company  nor  the  appellant-

Company came to know about the same.  It is also asserted  

that no individual notice was served.  In view of the same,  

according to learned senior counsel, the appellant-Company  

was deprived of  its  valuable  right  to  file  objections  under  

Section 5A of the Act.  He further contended that, it is an  

opportunity given to the land owners or person in possession  

of lands to make a representation under Section 5A of the  

Act.   To  put  it  clear,  the  purpose  of  publication  of  the  

notification  is  two-fold,  first,  to  ensure  that  adequate  

publicity is given so that land owners and persons interested  

will have an opportunity to file their objections under Section  

5A of the Act, and second, to give the land owners/occupants  

a notice that it shall be lawful for any officer authorized by  

the  government  to  carry  out  the  activities  enumerated  in  

sub-section (2)  of Section 4 of the Act.   This position has  

been reiterated in several decisions of this Court vide Khub  

14

Page 15

Chand & Ors. vs.  State of Rajasthan & Ors.,  (1967) 1  

SCR  120,  J&K  Housing  Board  and  Anr. vs.  Kunwar  

Sanjay Krishan Kaul & Ors., (2011) 10 SCC 714 and Usha  

Stud & Agricultural Farms P. Ltd. & Ors. vs.  State of  

Haryana and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 210.   

15) Learned  Additional  Advocate  General  appearing  for  

respondent-State  asserted  that  the  authorities  have  

complied with all the three modes of publication.  To test the  

above statements, we verified the written statement of Shri  

L.B.  Verma,  District  Revenue  Officer-cum-Land  Acquisition  

Collector, Sonipat filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 herein  

before the High Court.  Though in para 6, it is stated that the  

notification was published in two daily newspapers, namely,  

National Herald dated 02.01.2006 in English and Amar Ujala  

in Hindi dated 31.12.2005 but there is no whisper about the  

publication of the substance of the notification in the locality  

as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act.  Except the above  

said written statement dated 15.11.2007, no other material  

such as counter affidavit or reply had been projected before  

the High Court as well as before this Court in support of their  

15

Page 16

stand.  In fact, on 09.08.2010, when the matter was called  

for  hearing,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  

submitted that “in view of the counter filed before the High  

Court, no separate counter is being filed here”.  In view of  

the above, it  is  clear  that  in spite of knowing the specific  

ground raised by the appellant about the non-publication of  

the substance of the notification as prescribed under  the Act  

in  the  locality  concerned,  neither  the  State  nor  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector  availed the  opportunity of  filing reply  

refuting the same.  In such circumstances, we have no other  

option except to hold that there was no publication of the  

substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in  

the locality which is held to be mandatory. It is also relevant  

to point out that by effecting such publication in the locality,  

it  would be possible for the person in possession, namely,  

either  the  owner  or  lessee  to  make  their  

representation/objection in the enquiry under Section 5A.  In  

addition to the  same,  such person “owner  or  occupier”  is  

entitled to file their objections within 30 days from the date  

of publication in the locality and by non-publication of the  

16

Page 17

same in the locality as provided under the Act, the owner or  

occupier loses his valuable right.  For these reasons also, the  

acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed.  

16) Coming  to  the  contention  raised  by  learned  senior  

counsel  that  the  appellant-Company  itself  is  running  an  

industry on the date of the notification, we are of the view  

that there is no justification in acquiring a running industrial  

unit for industrialization of the area.  By placing acceptable  

materials, the appellant-Company has demonstrated that the  

construction at  the site in question is A-Class construction  

and the fact that Rector No. 75 itself, which is a substantial  

part of the area, has been left out from the acquisition, the  

impugned notifications qua the running industrial unit cannot  

be sustained in law.  The appellant-Company, in support of  

the same, has also placed copy of the sanctioned building  

plan  of  the  Company  dated  18.03.1994,  copy  of  the  sale  

deed dated 10.05.1994, copy of the communication of the  

Director,  Urban Estates Development Haryana,  Chandigarh  

dated  23.03.1982,  copy  of  the  certificate  by  the  Haryana  

Financial Corporation dated 14.05.2003, copy of no objection  

17

Page 18

certificate  from the Haryana  State  Pollution Control  Board  

dated 17.10.1996 and copy of lease deed in favour of M/s  

Anand Agro Products dated 05.05.2003.  On going through  

the  materials  placed,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  appellant-

Company has established that it is a running industrial unit  

even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and  

the appellant has established its case on this ground also.   

17) Coming to the last contention, viz., exclusion of more  

than 76 acres of land, in the writ petition as well as in the  

grounds of appeal, the appellant has furnished details of the  

area released from acquisition in Rector-75 itself which is as  

under:

S.No. Name of industrial Khasra No. Area  left  from

Concern Acquisition

1. Natraj Stationery 75/11/2/2 -- Products Pvt. Ltd. 2/13 1-6

12/2/1 1-1

2. Moja shoes (Pvt) Ltd. 75/11/2 1-6 76/16 ½ 0-6

3. Haryana Coir (P) Ltd. 75/12/2/1 2-14 75/13/1 4-0 11/2/1 1-4 12/1/1 1-6 75/12/2/1 2-14

18

Page 19

As  rightly  pointed  out,  if  the  appellant-Company  had  the  

opportunity of participating in the enquiry under Section 5A,  

it would be open to the Company to make a representation  

for exclusion like others and there would be every possibility  

for the State Government to accede to the request since the  

appellant-Company is running an industry which is similar to  

the  public  purpose  for  which  lands  were  being  acquired.  

During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant has also brought to our notice an approved sketch  

about  the  excluded  lands  and  location  of  the  appellant-

Company which is  on the extreme corner  of the  acquired  

lands.   In  other  words,  even  if  the  Government  or  the  

authority  concerned  excludes  the  lands  of  the  appellant-

Company, there would not be any difficulty in executing the  

scheme.  The said claim of the appellant is acceptable.  

18) Under these circumstances, we set aside the impugned  

order of the High Court dated 08.07.2008 and quash the land  

acquisition proceedings insofar as the appellant-Company is  

concerned.  The Civil Appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.  

19

Page 20

                                        ...…………….………………………CJI.            (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

 .…....…………………………………J.        (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)         …....…………………………………J.           (RANJAN GOGOI)                         

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 16, 2013.    

20