PETITIONER: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL NIGAM CENTRAL STORES DIVISION, U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: SURESHA NAND JUYAL @ MUSA RAM (DECEASED) BY L.RS. ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted
We have learned counsel on both sides
Notifications under section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act
(for short, the ‘Act’) was published on May 7, 1986. The
Notice under Section 5-A was issued and the objection filed
on December 17, 1986 were over-ruled after due
consideration. Declaration under Section 6 was published on
August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award came
to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was
taken on the said date. The respondents filed the writ
petition on August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ
petition by the impugned judgment dated August 31,1992 in
W.P. No. 3354/1988. The question is whether the procedure
followed by the Land Acquisition officer was vitiated by any
error manifest on the face of the record warranting
interference by the High Court? Shri Naresh Kumar Shrma,
learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the
respondent/tenant has not been given any opportunity at the
enquiry under Section 5-A. The land is the only source of
livelihood and scheme was temporary. In view of the long
lapse of time the purpose of the acquisition under Section
4(1) of the Act no longer survived. Therefore, it does not
serve and purpose. Counter affidavit filled in the High
Court by respondents shows that pursuant to the notice under
Rule 30 of the Land Acquisition Rules, the respondents had
filed the objections and it is stated therein as under:
“The concerned farmers were issued
notices under Section 5-A under the
Land Acquisition Act and Rule 30
giving 30 days time for raising
objection on 2.9.1986, concerned
farmer Shri Mussa alias Swesha
Nanda Objected which was taken on
record.”
Obviously, after consideration of all the objection and
rejection thereof, declaration under Section 6 was
published. As stated earlier, the award was made and
symbolic possession was taken on December 17, 1988. Under
the circumstances, the land stood vested in the State free
from all encumbrances. After the proceedings had become
final, the writ petition came to be filed on May 19,1989.
The mere fact that due to lapse of time no action was taken
after the filing of the writ petition, does not give ground
for interference. The further fact that public purpose must
have been served by constructing the quarters for the
officers elsewhere, is without any substance. The mere fact
that on account of the pending litigation, no construction
was made, is no ground to say that notification under
section 4(1) was vitiated by any error of law; equally,
increase in the prices of the lands is no ground.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the
High Court stands set aside. The notification under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act stand
restored. No costs.