SRI CH.NARASIMHA RAO Vs LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ELURU .
Bench: ANIL R. DAVE,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Case number: C.A. No.-014248-014248 / 2015
Diary number: 2190 / 2013
Advocates: T. V. RATNAM Vs
C. K. SUCHARITA
Page 1
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14248 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8583 of 2013)
Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao & Ors. .....Appellants
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High
Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated
10th October, 2012, in Writ Appeal No.1274 of 2012, this
appeal has been preferred by the land owners, whose lands
have been acquired.
Page 2
2
3. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Reference
Applications filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act”), was beyond statutory period. For the purpose of
ascertaining the said fact, it would be necessary to record
some of the relevant facts pertaining to the acquisition
proceedings.
4. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of
acquiring the land for establishment of Auto Nagar at Eluru
had been issued on 27th August, 1993. In pursuance of the
said notification, notification under Section 6 of the Act had
been published on 8th October, 1993. Looking at the facts of
the case, the Authorities had invoked urgency clause and
enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been dispensed with.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforestated acquisition
proceedings, the land owners i.e. the appellants had
challenged the validity of notification under Section 6 of the
Page 3
3
Act and had also challenged invocation of urgency clause,
whereby enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been
dispensed with. The said petition had been allowed by the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and declaration under Section
6 of the Act had been quashed. It was held by the High Court
that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been
mechanically dispensed with and it was also directed that
such an enquiry should be held. The High Court had also
given time limit for holding the enquiry.
6. In pursuance of the aforestated direction of the High
Court, once again, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act
had been made on 7th August, 1996 and subsequently Award
No.2 of 1998 had been made on 7th January, 1998.
7. Once again, Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998 challenging
the validity of notification under Section 6 had been filed in
November, 1998 on the ground that the said notification was
not issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act.
Page 4
4
Ultimately, the said petition had been dismissed on 27th
August, 1999, but being aggrieved by the order of dismissal,
Writ Appeal No.1337 of 1999 had been filed by appellants
before the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The
said appeal had been allowed by the High Court on 23rd July,
2001 and thereby the acquisition proceedings had come to an
end. The review application filed against the judgment
delivered by the Division Bench had also been rejected by the
High Court.
8. In the aforestated circumstances, a Special Leave Petition
challenging the abovestated judgment had been filed by
Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited
(APIIC), for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired
for establishment of Auto Nagar. Leave was granted in the
said Special Leave Petition, which was recorded as Civil Appeal
Nos.304-305 of 2005. An interim order was also passed in the
said appeals for maintaining status-quo with regard to
Page 5
5
possession as it existed on 10th January, 2005. During the
pendency of the aforestated appeals before this Court, the
Land Acquisition Officer had filed a petition under Section
31(2) of the Act before the District Court. The said proceedings
had been rejected by the District Judge on the ground that the
acquisition proceedings were pending before the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court had given a direction for
maintaining status-quo.
9. Ultimately, this Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos.304-305
of 2005 on 15th September, 2011, whereby the judgment
delivered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Writ Petition No.1337 of 1999 had been set aside. Thus,
ultimately, the acquisition proceedings were upheld by this
Court.
10. As the acquisition proceedings had been upheld, the
appellants, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation,
had filed Reference Applications under Section 18(1) of the Act
Page 6
6
on 17th October, 2011. The said reference applications had
been rejected on the ground of delay by the Land Acquisition
Officer on 21st January, 2012 as the Award in respect of the
lands in question had been made on 18th January, 1998.
11. The aforestated proceedings, whereby the reference
applications had been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer,
had been challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
on 4th August, 2012 by filing Writ Petition No.24806 of 2012.
The said writ petition had been rejected by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court on 13th August, 2012 on the ground
that the reference applications under Section 18(1) of the Act
had not been filed within the time prescribed under the said
section. The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge
on 13th August, 2012 had been challenged by the present
appellants/land owners by filing Writ Appeal No.1274 of 2012,
which was also dismissed on the same ground on 10th
October, 2012.
Page 7
7
12. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment dated 10th
October, 2012, this appeal has been filed by the land owners.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants mainly
submitted that the applications for reference under Section
18(1) of the Act ought not to have been rejected on the ground
of delay. The learned counsel fairly admitted that the
applications under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within
the time prescribed. According to him, the said applications
could not be said to have been filed beyond the period of
limitation for the reason that the proceedings regarding
acquisition had not been finalized and were pending before
different courts, namely before the High Court and before the
Apex Court and stay was operating against the acquiring body.
14. The learned counsel submitted that the acquisition had
been set aside by the High Court and only by an order dated
15th September, 2011 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal
Nos.304-305 of 2005, the acquisition had been confirmed.
Page 8
8
The learned counsel further submitted that till the aforestated
judgment was delivered by this Court confirming the
acquisition proceedings, there was no question of filing any
application under Section 18(1) because till that time there
was no land acquisition at all. By virtue of the order passed
by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the
acquisition proceedings had been held to be null and void and
therefore, the question of filing any application under Section
18(1) of the Act did not arise.
15. Though the Award had been made earlier on 7th January,
1998, the acquisition proceedings had been thereafter set
aside. The claimants, who are the land owners, did not collect
the amount of compensation as their lands had not been
acquired and therefore, there was no reason for them to be
aggrieved by quantification of the amount of compensation.
He further added that only upon getting intimation of the
order passed by this Court dated 15th September, 2011,
Page 9
9
whereby land acquisition proceedings have been confirmed
and whereby the lands stood acquired, the question with
regard to getting the amount of compensation from the District
Court arose and only at that time the appellants-the land
owners, could have thought about the quantum of
compensation awarded to them in respect of their lands
acquired.
16. In the aforestated circumstances only on 15th September,
2011, by virtue of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal Nos.
304-305 of 2005, this Court finally declared that the lands of
the appellants stood acquired and therefore, the appellants
filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Act on 17th
October, 2011. He, therefore, submitted that the applications
under Section 18(1) of the Act were not beyond the period
prescribed under the Act.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Authorities could not deny the aforestated factual
Page 10
10
aspect with regard to the proceedings which had taken place
and the final judgment delivered by this Court on 15th
September, 2011.
18. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the
peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, this appeal deserves
to be allowed.
19. It is an admitted fact that the acquisition proceedings
had been finally confirmed by the judgment delivered by this
Court on 15th September, 2011. Till the said judgment was
delivered by this Court, there was no acquisition of the land
and therefore, there was no need for the appellants to file any
application under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon knowing the
fact that the lands had been acquired by virtue of the
judgment dated 15th September, 2011 delivered by this Court,
the appellants filed the applications under Section 18(1) of Act
on 17th October, 2011. In the aforestated circumstances, in
our opinion, the applications filed under Section 18(1) of the
Page 11
11
Act should not have been rejected as they were filed
immediately after pronouncement of the judgment by this
Court.
20. For the aforestated reasons, we allow the appeal and set
aside the judgment delivered by the High Court and we direct
that without going into the issue of delay or limitation, the
applications filed by the appellants under Section 18(1) of the
Act shall be entertained in accordance with law.
21. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order
as to costs.
………..……………………J. (ANIL R. DAVE)
………..…………………….J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
NEW DELHI DECEMBER 09, 2015.