Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The landowners challenged the acquisition in the High Court, contending that the State illegally dispensed with the Section 5-A inquiry by invoking the urgency provision under Section 17(4) even though there was no urgency. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification and award. The State appealed by special leave. A notification under Section 4(1) was issued on January 22, 1981. Notices under Section 9 followed. The Collector made an award on April 19, 1984 and allegedly took possession on the same date. The landowners filed a writ petition on May 13, 1985, challenging the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground that dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry under Section 17(4) was bad in law due to absence of urgency. The High Court, by order dated May 27, 1985, allowed the writ petition following its earlier decision in Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana. The core legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the award and the Section 4(1) notification after the award had been made. The State argued that the landowners had received compensation and sought a reference under Section 18, and that the award was made within two years under Section 11-A as amended by Act 68 of 1984, so the proceedings did not lapse. The landowners argued that the Section 5-A inquiry is a valuable right, and its dispensation under Section 17(4) without urgency was illegal; delay in challenging did not bar the writ petition. The Supreme Court noted that the notification and declaration were not challenged until May 13, 1985, while the award was made much earlier. The landowners had received compensation under protest and had made an application under Section 18, which was withdrawn after the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that after the award was made, it would not be justified to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 merely for dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry. The appropriate course was to sustain the notification, declaration, and award, while permitting the landowners to seek a reference under Section 18 for compensation within 30 days. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and directed that the landowners may apply under Section 18 within 30 days for determination of compensation. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Dispensing with Inquiry under Section 5-A - Section 17(4) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Challenge after award not maintainable - The High Court quashed the Section 4(1) notification and award on the ground that the urgency power under Section 17(4) was illegally invoked to dispense with the Section 5-A inquiry. The Supreme Court held that once the award has been made, the High Court should not quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 merely on that ground. Held: challenge after the award is not maintainable and the acquisition proceedings are sustained (Paras 1-2). B) Land Acquisition - Compensation Reference - Section 18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Remedy after award - The Court directed that it would be open to the landowners to make an application under Section 18 within 30 days from the date of judgment to the Collector for reference to the Civil Court for determination of compensation. Held: despite sustaining the acquisition, landowners remain entitled to seek enhancement through the statutory reference (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the land acquisition award dated April 19, 1984 and the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that dispensing with the Section 5-A inquiry under Section 17(4) was illegal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; notification under Section 4(1), declaration under Section 6, and award under Section 11 sustained; respondents permitted to make an application under Section 18 within 30 days from the date of judgment to the Collector for reference to Civil Court for determination of compensation; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Once an award is made under the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- the High Court is not justified in quashing the Section 4(1) notification and Section 6 declaration merely on the ground that the Section 5-A inquiry was dispensed with under Section 17(4)
- the appropriate remedy for the landowner is to seek a reference under Section 18 for determination of compensation
- delay in challenging the notification after the award also weighs against interference
- an award made within two years under Section 11-A does not lapse.
