Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from acquisition of 387.50 acres of land for the submergence of the Barna Dam irrigation project in the State of Madhya Pradesh under a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant's lands were required, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 5 September 1969 determining compensation. The appellant claimed that compensation was received under protest, although the judgment noted uncertainty on this point. The Collector rejected the appellant's application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2 April 1975. The appellant then filed a revision before the District Judge, which was rejected; the judgment mentions conflicting dates for the District Judge's order, 20 June 1982 and 29 June 1983. In 1987, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, registered as Misc. Petition No.484 of 1987. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 5 January 1988 on the ground of inordinate delay, noting that the petitioner had slept over the matter for more than five years from the District Judge's order and more than ten years from the Land Acquisition Collector's order. The Supreme Court considered the effect of the State Legislature of Madhya Pradesh amendment to clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and insertion of sub-section (3), which provided that any order made by the Collector on an application under that section shall be subject to revision by the High Court as if the Collector were a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that only the High Court, not the District Judge, had revisional jurisdiction over the Collector's rejection of a reference. Consequently, the District Judge's order was a nullity. Nevertheless, the Court held that the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and had rightly refused to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction because of inordinate delay. Even if the writ petition were treated as a revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court's order was not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity. The Court found no case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - M.P. Amendment - Revisional Jurisdiction - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18(2)(b), Section 18(3); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - The M.P. amendment provided that any order made by the Collector on an application under Section 18 shall be subject to revision by the High Court as if the Collector were a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. The District Judge's exercise of revisional power was without authority of law and its order was a nullity. Held that the District Judge's order was a nullity but the High Court's refusal on delay was not vitiated. (Paras 3-4) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, Article 226 - High Court refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction due to inordinate delay of more than 10 years from the Collector's order and over 5 years from the District Judge's order. Supreme Court held no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity and no interference under Article 136. Held appeal dismissed. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay; whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain a revision against the Collector's rejection of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act after the M.P. amendment which vested revisional power only in the High Court under Section 115 CPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No costs. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order refusing to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 due to inordinate delay. It held that the District Judge's order was a nullity for lack of jurisdiction, but the High Court's order was not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity, and no case was made out under Article 136.
Law Points
- High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be refused on ground of inordinate delay
- order of District Judge without jurisdiction is a nullity
- delay and laches may bar relief
- revision against Collector's order under M.P. amendment lies to High Court under Section 115 CPC
- no interference under Article 136 when High Court's order not vitiated by error of jurisdiction or material irregularity
