Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned acquisition of 3.589 acres of land in Cuttack for the Telecommunication Department for residential quarters of staff, telephone exchange, post office, etc. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in January 1973, and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with by invoking Section 17(4) read with Section 17(1). Before declaration under Section 6 could be published, the wife of respondent No.1 made a representation to delete 24 decimals of land for construction of a Nursing Home. Cuttack Development Authority later declared the area a commercial zone, and the appellant applied for permission to construct up to 90 ft. and release the rest for residential purposes. Declaration under Section 6 was published on 30.06.1975, notice under Section 9 was served on 01.11.1975, possession was taken on 12.04.1976 and handed over to Union of India. The Land Acquisition Officer made award on 02.11.1976, and most claimants accepted the award, with some receiving under protest; the amount for Dr. Sarojini Pradhan was kept in deposit. After her death, respondent No.1 filed W.P. No.1139/79 challenging the notifications. The High Court on 16.03.1982 directed the Government to consider the representation for exclusion. After scrutiny, Union of India rejected the representation on 03.06.1987. Respondents then filed W.P. No.435 of 1988 challenging the notifications. The High Court by order dated 31.10.1990 quashed the notification under Section 4(1) holding that exercise of power under Section 17(4) was invalid, and that the declaration under Section 6 was made after the amendment to Section 6 came into force, thus invalidating the notification. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in interfering with acquisition. It noted that out of 3.589 acres, the respondents claimed only 0.240 acres (about 1162 sq. yards), while others had accepted the award. The Court observed that possession is always taken under a memo, and by operation of Section 17(1) the Land Acquisition Officer was entitled to take possession even before award. Award was made on 02.11.1976, and by operation of Section 16, right, title and interest vested in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances with effect from 12.04.1976. Relying on Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., the Court held that once possession has been taken, validity of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 cannot be gone into, and Section 11A does not apply. The Court distinguished Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope, where neither award was made before the amendment nor possession was taken. It also held that the purpose of Section 5A enquiry became academic once construction started and was in progress, as the acquired land comprised Officers' building and 2000 electronic exchange. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held the High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering with acquisition and quashing the notification and declaration. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Possession and Vesting - Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Taking possession under Section 17(1) before award vests land in Government absolutely free from all encumbrances, and validity of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 cannot subsequently be challenged - Held that High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering with acquisition after possession was taken on 12.04.1976 and award made on 02.11.1976, even though declaration under Section 6 was published after amendment (Para 1). B) Land Acquisition - Dispensing with Enquiry under Section 5A - Sections 17(4) and 5A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Purpose of Section 5A enquiry is to show availability of alternative suitable land or absence of public purpose, but this becomes academic once construction has started and is in progress - Held that no interference is warranted on this ground when acquired land comprised Officers' building and 2000 electronic exchange already under construction (Para 1). C) Land Acquisition - Precedent Distinction - Sections 11A, 4(1), 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - In Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., once possession is taken validity of notification and declaration cannot be gone into and Section 11A does not apply; Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope is distinguishable because there neither award was made before amendment nor possession was taken - Held that ratio of Oxford English School has no application to these appeals (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the acquisition after possession had been taken, award made, and land vested in the Government, particularly when the exercise of power under Section 17(4) was held invalid and the declaration under Section 6 was made after the amendment to Section 6.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The High Court order quashing notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 was set aside. No costs.
Law Points
- Possession taken under Section 17(1) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 before award vests land in government free from encumbrances under Section 16
- validity of notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 cannot be challenged after possession taken
- Section 11A does not apply once possession is taken
- Section 5A enquiry becomes academic once construction starts
- Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope distinguished on facts
