Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3203  OF 2012

State of Jharkhand and others … Appellants

Versus

M/s. K.N. Farms and Industries (P) Ltd. … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.10.2010 of the Division  

Bench of the Jharkhand High Court whereby the letters patent appeal filed by  

the  appellants  was  dismissed  and  the  direction  given  by  the  learned  Single  

Judge in W.P. No.1546 of 2005 for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6  

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) and passing of an  

award after assessing value of the acquired land was upheld.

1

Page 2

2. The facts which have been culled out from the pleadings of the parties  

are as under:

(i). After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short,  

‘the 1950 Act’), the ex-landlord Shri Kanai Lal Nandi settled 458.28 acres land  

of  villages  Gurajore  and  Darisai  of  Dhalbhum  Sub  Division,  Singhbhum  

District (now known as Ghatisila Sub Division of East Singhbhum) in favour of  

the  respondent,  of  which  his  own  brother  Kishori  Mohan  Nandi  was  the  

Managing Director and other kith and kins and one driver, namely, Shri B.C.  

Tudu, were the Directors.  

(ii). After some time, the respondent executed an agreement dated 28.2.1960  

with  the  Government  of  Bihar  for  the  purchase  of  land  described  in  the  

preceding sub-paragraph for rehabilitation of Kharia tribe. The relevant portions  

of the agreement are extracted below:

“This Indenture made this the 28th day of February, 1960 between  K.N.  Farms & Industries,  Private,  Limited,  a  Limited  Company  incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913  through Kishori Mohan Nandi son of Shri Krishna Chandra Nandi  of Galudih, by caste Tili, by occupation cultivation of Galudih, P.S.  Ghatsila, District Singhbhum, being the present Managing Director  of  the  said  Company  Head  Office  at  Galudih,  P.S.  Ghatsila,  Pergana  Dhalbhu,  District  Singhbhum,  hereinafter  called  the  Vendor, which terms shall, if not repugnant to the context, include  its  successors-in-office  and  assigns  of  the  one  part,  and  Government of Bihar hereinafter called the Purchaser, which term  

2

Page 3

unless  repugnant  to  the  context,  shall  mean  and  include  his  successor-in-office and assigns of the other part:

2.  WHEREAS the Purchaser has decided to acquire a big farms  and  large  tracts  of  agricultural  lands  in  compact  blocks  for  the  purpose of rehabilitation of Kharias in Dhalbhum Sub-Division of  the District of Singhbhum, under the Land Acquisition Act or by  such  other  method  of  transfer  as  the  Purchaser  may  hereinafter  decide.

3.  AND  WHEREAS,  the  Purchaser  has  selected  the  lands  belonging to the Vendor for the said purpose as specified in the  Schedule annexed hereto.

4.  AND WHEREAS the price of the said lands has been assessed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  as  per  Annexure  ‘A’  with  the  consent of the parties and it has been agreed between the parties  that the value of the land shall be the value assessed by the Land  Acquisition Officer in Annexure ‘A’ plus 7  1/2% of the value of  land to be transferred to the purchaser.

6.  NOW  THIS  INDENTURES  WITHNESSETH  that  in  consideration of the value of the lands and other assets as set forth  above the Vendor hereby agree and bind himself  to transfer  the  land mentioned in the Schedule below and deliver possession of the  same to the Purchaser free from all encumbrances, together with all  rights, easements and appurtenances, whatsoever to the said lands  belonging or in any way appertaining, to hold the same unto and to  the use of the said, PURCHASER absolutely and for ever.

7. The  value  of  the  land  mentioned  in  the  Schedule  comes  to  Rs.81322/68 as per details given in Annexure ‘B’.

8. AND the said Vendor for himself, his successors-in-office and  assigns doth hereby covenant with the PURCHASER that he shall  immediately on payment of the consideration mentioned in clauses  4 and 5 execute the Deed of Transfer in favour of the Purchaser and  Vendor further agrees to transfer the land on the above price in any  way that may suit the convenience of the Purchaser.”

3

Page 4

(iii). The respondent handed over possession of  334.65 acres land to Land  

Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) on 31.3.1960 and the same was distributed  

among the members of Kharia tribe.

(iv). After 8 months,  Notification dated 9.12.1960 was issued under Section 4  

of  the  1894  Act  for  the  acquisition  of  land  measuring  334.65  acres.  The  

declaration issued under Section 6 was published on 4.4.1961. Although, no  

award is shown to have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, two cases  

being LA Case  No.6/61-62 and LA Case No.5/63-64 were registered in  the  

matter. It is not clear from the record as to what was the fate of those cases.

(v). The State  Government  deposited  Rs.81,322.68  with  the  District  Land  

Acquisition Officer as the price of land, but, before the amount could be paid to  

the respondent, LRDC passed an order under Section 4(h) of the 1950 Act and  

annulled the settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of the respondent.  

The appeal and the revision filed against the order of LRDC were dismissed by  

Deputy  Commissioner,  Singhabhum  and  Commissioner,  South  Chotanagpur  

Division,  Ranchi  respectively.  C.W.J.C.  No.  410  of  1978  filed  by  the  

respondent was allowed by the High Court on 30.6.1986 and the order passed  

for cancellation of the settlement was quashed.

4

Page 5

(vi). After  about  45  years  of  having  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  

Government of Bihar, the respondent filed W.P. No.1546 of 2005 for issue of a  

direction to the appellants to pay compensation with interest and the cost of  

litigation by alleging that even though possession of the land was taken in 1960  

but price had not been paid despite repeated representations / reminders. The  

nature of grievance made by the respondent is discernible from the averments  

contained in paragraph Nos. 16 to 20 of the writ petition, which are reproduced  

below:       

“16.  That  the  petitioner  states  that  after  giving  a  number  of representations  to  the  number  of  authorities,  he ultimately  received  a  copy  of  the  letter  dated 07.07.1995 addresses to the Director, welfare, Bihar, Patna, given  by the District Welfare Officer, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur after  calculating the interest asked for sending the amount for making  payment to the petitioner.

A photo copy of the aforesaid letter dated 07.07.1995 is annexed  herewith and marked as Annexure - 5 to this writ petition.

17. That  the  petitioner  states  that,  thereafter,  he  again received a copy of the letter dated 15.09.1995 addressed to the  District Welfare Officer Singhbhum East Chaibasa given by the  Joint  Secretary State  of  Bihar  (Welfare  Department)  for  taking  steps for payment to the petitioner.

A photo copy of the aforesaid letter dated 15.09.1995 is annexed  herewith and marked as Annexure - 6 to this writ petition.

18. That the petitioner states that from the aforesaid two letters  (contained in annexure - 5 and 6) it is clear that the said sum of  Rs. 81,322.68 together with the interest has become a sum of Rs.  

5

Page 6

1,52,046.12 P for  Village Darisa and Rs.  1,60,637.57 paisa for  Village Gurajore only.

19. That the petitioner states that according to the agreement the  petitioner is entitled the amount agreed and a sum of Rs.  15%  over and above the total  amount arrived at  will  be required as  additional  compensation  under  section  23(1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  and  15  times  Government  Revenue   and  capitalized Value of Rent and also entitled the interest according  to  the provision of  the Land Acquisition Act  from the date  of  delivery  of  the  possession  of  the  land  to  the  respondents  i.e.  31.3.1960 till the actual date of payment.

20.  That  the  petitioner  states  and  submits  that  the  petitioner  company has not received a single rupees till today for acquisition  of  the  lands  mentioned  in  the  aforesaid  agreement  dated  28.02.1960 contained in Annexure - 1 though the delivery of the  possession  of  the  said  lands  to  the  respondents  were  given on  31.03.1960.”      

                                               (vii). The prayer clause of the writ petition is also reproduced below:

“ It is, therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to  admit this application and issue Rule Nisi to the respondents to  show cause as to why the respondents be not directed to make  payment of  the compensation amount with the interest  up to  date  and  with  the  cost  of  litigation  which  the  petitioner  is  entitled, immediately to the petitioner and after hearing both the  parties after perusing the show cause it any shown, make the  rule  absolute  and pass  such  further  order  or  orders  as  Your  Lordships may deem fit and proper.”  

(viii).  The respondent filed another writ petition, which came to be registered  

as  W.P.  No.  6793  of  2006  and  prayed  that  a  mandamus  be  issued  to  the  

appellants to start the acquisition proceedings afresh in respect of 201.41 acres  

6

Page 7

land of Village Darisai and 133.24 acres land of Village Gurajore by asserting  

that the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1960 had not been finalised.

(ix). W.P. No. 6793 of 2006 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on  

16.1.2008 by recording the following observations:  

“Heard the parties and perused the records. The petitioner's  main grievance is regarding non-payment of the price as  mentioned in the indenture dated 28.02.1960. The petitioner has  approached this court after more than four decades. The claim  of the petitioner is stale and the same cannot be entertained in  writ jurisdiction of this Court.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

(x). The respondent filed Civil Review No. 23 of 2008 for reconsideration of  

order dated 16.1.2008 but did not pursue the same till the disposal of the first  

writ petition.

(xi). The first writ petition, i.e., W.P. No. 1546 of 2005 was disposed of by  

another learned Single Judge on 18.11.2009 and a direction was given to the  

Collector of District Singhbhum (East) to issue fresh notices under Sections 4  

and  6  of  the  1894  Act  and  pass  an  award  for  grant  of  compensation  after  

assessing the value of the acquired land. The relevant portions of order dated  

18.11.2009 are extracted below:

“8. From the pleadings in the writ application and also from  the various documents annexed thereto, it appears that the  

7

Page 8

petitioner's main contention is that though, his land was sought  to be acquired by initiation of the land acquisition proceeding  way back in the year 1960 and the amount of compensation was  also contemplated and agreed for payment, but till date, no  award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, nor any  amount of compensation paid.

9. Such proceeding, in the light of the provisions of section  11A of the Land Acquisition Act, is deemed to have lapsed.  The Land Acquisition Officer shall have to pass an award by  initiating a fresh proceeding under Land Acquisition Act.

10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this case  is remitted back to the Land Acquisition Officer namely, the  Collector of the District of Singhbhum East, to issue fresh  notices as required under sections 4 and 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act and to pass an award for the grant of  compensation in accordance with law, after assessing the value  of the land acquired.  This exercise must be initiated and  concluded by the Collector within a period of four months from  the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”  

(xii). After disposal of the first writ petition, the respondent revived its interest  

in prosecuting Civil Review No. 23 of 2008 filed in W.P. No. 6793 of 2006.  

The learned Single Judge took cognizance of order dated 18.11.2009 passed in  

W.P.  No.  1546 of  2005 and proceeded to decide  the review petition in  the  

following terms:

“6. Considering the said submissions and the facts and  circumstances, appearing on record, I find that the petitioner is  entitled to the same relief as has been given to him in the  similar situation in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of 2005 which was  

8

Page 9

denied to him in absence of the relevant facts on record in W.P. (C) No. 6793 of 2006.

7. In view of the above, the order dated 16.1.2008, passed in  W.P.(C) No. 6793 of 2006 is recalled and the writ petition is  disposed of directing the respondents to act in accordance with  the directions, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1546 of  2005 also in respect of the land described in W.P.(C) No. 6793  of 2006. The District Land Acquisition Officer/Collector of the  district of Singhbhum East is accordingly, directed to take  immediate steps for assessing proper compensation of the  aforesaid land in accordance with law within a period of three  months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this  order.”

(xiii). Letters Patent Appeal No. 567 of 2009 filed by the appellants against the  

order passed in W.P. No. 1546 of 2005 was dismissed by the Division Bench of  

the High Court by recording a rather brief order. The Division Bench did not  

advert to the issues raised in the Letters Patent Appeal including the one that the  

learned  Single  Judge  was  not  justified  in  directing  the  appellants  to  issue  

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act because the only grievance  

made by the respondent was in respect of non-payment of compensation and the  

provisions of Section 11A of the 1894 Act, which was inserted by the 1984  

amendment, has no application in such matters, but negatived the appellants’  

challenge to order dated 18.11.2009 by observing that the title of land passes  

only when the acquisition takes place in accordance with law and the learned  

9

Page 10

Single Judge did not commit any error by directing the appellants to issue fresh  

notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act.

3. Shri  Amrendra  Sharan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the  

Division Bench altogether ignored that the direction given by the learned Single  

Judge for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and  

passing of an award was clearly beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by  

the respondent. Shri Sharan emphasied that if the respondent was to file a writ  

petition  in  2005  for  issue  of  a  direction  to  the  appellants  to  initiate  the  

acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of which possession was handed  

over in 1960, the High Court was bound to dismiss the same only on the ground  

of unexplained delay of more than four decades and the learned Single Judge  

committed grave error by issuing a mandamus for which the respondent had not  

even made a prayer. Learned senior counsel argued that after having accepted  

the amount of compensation the respondent did not have the locus to press the  

writ petitions filed by it. He also pointed out that during the pendency of the  

writ petition filed by it, the respondent had received Rs. 1,48,683/- in LA Case  

No. 6/61-62 and Rs. 1,57,754/- in LA Case No. 5/63-64.

10

Page 11

4. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent  

supported the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench  

of the High Court and argued that in the absence of any provision in the 1894  

Act, the State Government could not acquire title of the land belonging to the  

respondent  simply  by  executing  an  agreement.  Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted  that  the  appellants  were  very  much  conscious  of  the  fact  that  

possession of the land had been taken without acquiring the same in accordance  

with the provisions of the 1894 Act and that is  the reason why they issued  

notification dated 9.12.1960 under  Section 4 and declaration dated 4.4.1961  

under Section 6.  He further submitted that the respondent was compelled to file  

the writ petition because no award was passed in furtherance of the acquisition  

proceedings initiated in 1960. Still further, the learned senior counsel submitted  

that the respondent had accepted the price of the land by reserving its rights to  

challenge the action of the appellants and the High Court did not commit any  

error by directing the appellants to acquire the land by following the procedure  

prescribed under the 1894 Act and pay compensation in terms of the award to  

be  passed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  keeping  in  view the  prevailing  

market value.

5. We have considered the respective submissions.  In our view, the order  

passed by the learned Single Judge was ex-facie erroneous and the Division  

11

Page 12

Bench of the High Court committed grave mistake by approving the same. The  

direction  given  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  to  the  appellants  to  issue  

notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and pay compensation to the respondent in  

terms of the award to be passed by assessing the value of the acquired land was  

clearly beyond the scope of W.P. No. 1546 of 2005, a reading of which leaves  

no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  respondent  had  not  made  a  grievance  that  

agreement dated 28.2.1960 was ultra vires the provisions of the 1894 Act or that  

even though possession of  a  substantial  portion of  the land specified in  the  

agreement  had  been  handed  over  on  31.3.1960,  the  State  Government  was  

under  a  legal  obligation  to  initiate  the  acquisition  proceedings  and  pay  

compensation under the 1894 Act.  

6. The case set up by the respondent was that even though LRDC had taken  

possession of the land in furtherance of the agreement, the concerned authority  

had  not  paid  compensation  despite  repeated  representations  and  that  it  was  

entitled  to  receive  the  amount  with  interest  for  the  period  of  45  years.  

Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not notice the pleadings of the writ  

petition and decided the matter by assuming that the respondent was aggrieved  

by the inaction of the competent authority to initiate the acquisition proceedings  

under the 1894 Act and pay compensation determined by the Land Acquisition  

Officer, who was bound to take into consideration the prevailing market value.  

12

Page 13

7. We have now no doubt that if the learned Single Judge had taken the  

trouble of going through the pleadings of the case, he would not have issued a  

mandamus for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6, passing of award  

and payment of compensation to the respondent and that too by overlooking the  

fact  that  the  respondent  had  moved  the  High  Court  after  45  years  of  the  

execution of agreement dated 28.2.1960. The learned Single Judge, who passed  

order in Civil Review No. 23 of 2008 also committed the same error and passed  

order dated 24.11.2010 without even adverting to the grievance made by the  

respondent in the first writ petition.

8. The Division Bench of the High Court did not take cognizance of the  

grounds on which the appellants had questioned the order passed by the learned  

Single Judge in W.P. No. 1546 of 2005 and confirmed the order passed by him  

by erroneously assuming that it was a case of abject failure of the concerned  

authorities to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the 1894  

Act.  

9. Another  grave  error  committed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge  and  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  is  that  the  learned  Judges  completely  

overlooked the settled law that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the  

Constitution, the High Court does not entertain belated claims - State of M.P. v.  

13

Page 14

Bhailal  Bhai,  (1964)  6 SCR 261 :  AIR 1964 SC 1006 and M/s Tilokchand  

Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also order  

dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1546 of 2005  

are  set  aside  and  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  is  dismissed.  

However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

11. It is needless to say that we have not examined the correctness of the  

calculation made by the appellants of the amount payable to the respondent in  

terms of agreement dated 28.2.1960 and if the latter has any grievance in that  

regard,  then  this  order  shall  not  preclude  it  from availing  appropriate  legal  

remedy.

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

…………..………..….………………….…J.               [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi, March 30, 2012.          

14