Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard appeals by the State of Gujarat and Reliance Petroleum Limited against a Gujarat High Court judgment quashing land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was initiated for the appellant company to acquire approximately 2,500 acres across several villages; by the time of the Supreme Court hearing, only 19 individuals holding 241.34 acres remained in dispute. The writ petitioners before the High Court challenged the Section 4(1) notification, Section 6 declaration, and subsequent award on grounds of non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969 and absence of a hearing under Section 5A. The High Court accepted these contentions and quashed the proceedings. The Supreme Court, however, found that the writ petitioners had participated in the award proceedings, filed claims, made a settlement offer for compensation, and only moved the High Court after the award was passed because they were dissatisfied with the compensation amount. The Court held that the writ petitioners' conduct, including delay and acquiescence, disentitled them from seeking discretionary relief under Article 226. The Court did not decide the legal question of whether compliance with Rules 3 and 4 and Section 5A was mandatory, as it found the factual conduct sufficient to set aside the High Court order. To balance equities, the Court directed the appellant company to pay enhanced compensation at the rates paid to other landowners who had settled, with 12% interest from 25.10.1994, provided the remaining 19 landowners filed an affidavit accepting the same within eight weeks. If they did not, they could pursue their remedies in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Delay and Acquiescence - Constitution of India, Article 226 - High Court should not entertain writ petition challenging land acquisition when petitioners participated in award proceedings and delayed filing until after award; held that discretionary jurisdiction should not be exercised on facts.
B) Land Acquisition - Acquisition for Company - Compliance with Companies Rules and Section 5A - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4(1), 5A, 6; Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969, Rules 3,4 - Court assumed non-compliance but held that on facts, the High Court should not have quashed proceedings due to conduct of petitioners; did not decide mandatory nature.
C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Enhanced Compensation Direction - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 11, 18, 12(2) - Supreme Court directed appellant company to pay enhanced compensation at rates paid to settlers with 12% interest from 25.10.1994 if affidavit filed within 8 weeks; otherwise landowners may agitate according to law.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing land acquisition proceedings under Article 226 despite delay and participation by petitioners; whether non-compliance with Rules 3, 4 and Section 5A is mandatory; what relief should be granted to remaining landowners
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; judgment of the Gujarat High Court set aside. The Supreme Court directed the appellant company to pay enhanced compensation at the rates paid to other landowners who had settled, with 12% interest from 25.10.1994, if the remaining 19 persons file an affidavit accepting the same within 8 weeks; company to pay within 4 weeks of filing affidavit. If no affidavit filed, landowners may agitate their claims in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and acquiescence bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Land acquisition proceedings not to be quashed when petitioners participated in award proceedings and sought reference under Section 18
- Compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules
- 1969 and Section 5A assumed not strict but not enough to quash on facts
- Enhanced compensation directed to meet ends of justice
- Writ petitioners entitled to compensation under Act with separate procedure
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (05) 55
S.L.P. (C) No. 27230 of 1995 and S.L.P. (C) No. 27350 of 1995
K. Venkataswami, S.C. Agrawal
1996 SCC (4) 579, JT 1996 (5) 114, 1996 SCALE (4) 340
Ashok Desai, Shanti Bhushan
Reliance Petroleum Limited and State of Gujarat
Zaver Chand Popatlal Sumaria and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Challenge to land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land for Reliance Petroleum Limited.
Remedy Sought
Writ petitioners sought quashing of Section 4(1) notification, Section 6 declaration, and award; appellants sought setting aside of High Court judgment.
Filing Reason
Non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969 and absence of personal hearing under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act.
Previous Decisions
Gujarat High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Section 4(1) notification dated 15.2.1993, Section 6 declaration dated 18.5.1994, and award dated 12.12.1994 insofar as they related to the lands of the writ petitioners and other objectors (89 in number) in villages Padana and Meghpur.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 despite delay and participation in award proceedings by the petitioners.
Whether compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969 and personal hearing under Section 5A is mandatory.
What relief should be granted to the remaining 19 landowners holding 241.34 acres.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant company argued that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition due to delay and conduct of the petitioners, whose object was to obtain an unrealistic price; compliance with Rules 3, 4 and Section 5A was made.
Respondents argued that compliance with Rules 3 and 4 and personal hearing under Section 5A is mandatory and non-compliance cannot be cured; they were entitled to present market value of about Rs.7 lakhs per acre.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petitioner who has participated in land acquisition award proceedings, filed claims, made settlement offers, and delayed filing the writ petition until after the award is passed, cannot invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to challenge the acquisition proceedings merely because the compensation awarded is not to their satisfaction. The conduct of the petitioner, including delay and acquiescence, is a relevant factor that may disentitle them from relief, even if there is assumed non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act and Companies Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
Taking note of all these facts we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition and also in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction to quash the 4(1) notifications section 6 declaration and award made under the Land Acquisition Act.
If really their intention was to challenge the acquisition as such they could have done immediately at least after the publication of declaration under section 6 or immediately after they received notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Procedural History
Section 4(1) notification under Land Acquisition Act dated 15.2.1993, published on 11.3.1993; inquiry under Section 5A conducted (Supreme Court assumed no strict compliance); Section 6 declaration published on 18.5.1994; individual notices under Section 9 issued on 12.8.1994; claims filed by landowners including respondents 1 to 3 on 5.9.1994; letter dated 7.9.1994 on behalf of 89 individuals; letter dated 25.10.1994 stating no objection to acquisition but demanding compensation; award passed on 12.12.1994 and notices under Section 12(2) issued same day; major portion of land possession taken on 19.12.1994; Special Civil Application No. 13525/94 filed on 20.12.1994 before Gujarat High Court; High Court allowed writ petition on 5.9.1995 quashing notification, declaration, and award; appeals by special leave filed in Supreme Court; Supreme Court allowed appeals on 9.5.1996.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1), Section 5A, Section 6, Section 9, Section 12(2), Section 18
- Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1969: Rule 3, Rule 4
- Constitution of India: Article 226
