Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Sidhappa Gurupadappa Bijargi, an agriculturist, challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sangli, the State of Maharashtra, and the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). The dispute concerned the acquisition of land in Jath, District Sangli, for public purpose. The principal legal challenge centered on the validity of a notice issued under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the acquisition had become time-barred under section 11-A. The petitioner initially sought quashing of acquisition proceedings purportedly based on a notification dated 27/01/1998 under section 4 and a notice dated 09/04/1998 under section 9, arguing that no declaration under section 6 had been made prior to the notice. The respondents clarified that the notice actually pertained to an earlier acquisition initiated by a notification under section 4 dated 24/09/1987, followed by a declaration under section 6 on 13/10/1988. The petitioner had previously challenged the 1987 acquisition in Writ Petition No. 130 of 1989 and obtained a stay; that petition was dismissed on 05/06/1996, vacating the stay. Thereafter, the respondents issued an addendum to the section 6 declaration on 14/08/1998 and a notice under section 9 on 09/05/1998, concluding with an award on 31/08/1998 and taking possession on 13/01/1999. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition in 1999, alleging that the notice under section 9 was issued without a section 6 declaration. During arguments, the petitioner attempted to introduce a new plea that the award was passed beyond the period of two years from the declaration, violating section 11-A, and sought amendment of the petition. The High Court, comprising Justices R.M.S. Khandeparkar and V.M. Kanade, dismissed the petition. It held that the notice under section 9 clearly referred to the declaration dated 13/10/1988 and was not connected to the 1998 notification, so the proceedings were valid. The court further ruled that a notification under section 4 creates no vested right in interested persons, and the authorities may choose not to proceed under a given notification without affecting earlier proceedings. On the limitation issue, the court declined the amendment, citing unexplained delay and laches, the fact that possession had already been taken, and the absence of any ground regarding limitation in the original petition. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition – Validity of Notice under Section 9 – Requirement of Declaration under Section 6 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6, 9 – The petitioner challenged the land acquisition proceedings, contending that notice under section 9 dated 09/04/1998 was issued without a declaration under section 6, rendering the proceedings illegal. The court found that the notice actually related to an earlier acquisition initiated by notification dated 24/09/1987 and declaration dated 13/10/1988, not to the 1998 notification, and thus the challenge failed. Held that the proceedings were valid as they were based on an existing declaration under section 6 (Paras 3-6).
B) Land Acquisition – Effect of Subsequent Notification under Section 4 – No Vested Right – Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4 – The petitioner argued that the 1998 notification under section 4 implied that earlier proceedings had lapsed. The court held that a notification under section 4 does not confer any right on interested persons to compel the authorities to proceed with acquisition, nor does a later notification automatically nullify earlier proceedings. The respondents’ decision not to pursue the 1998 notification was within their discretion, and the earlier acquisition remained valid (Paras 7-8).
C) Land Acquisition – Limitation under Section 11-A – Delay and Laches in Raising Plea – Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 11-A – The petitioner sought to amend the petition to add a ground that the award passed on 31/08/1998 was barred by limitation as it was made more than two years after the declaration under section 6. The court declined the amendment, noting that section 11-A had been in force since 1984, no such ground was raised earlier, the award had been passed and possession taken in 1999, and the petitioner offered no explanation for the delay. Held that it was too late to raise the plea of limitation (Paras 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether notice under section 9 dated 09/04/1998 was invalid for lack of a prior declaration under section 6; whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under notification dated 24/09/1987 had lapsed due to issuance of a later notification dated 27/01/1998; whether the award passed on 31/08/1998 was barred by limitation under section 11-A, and whether the petitioner could raise this ground by amending the petition after delay
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- No right accrues to interested persons under section 4 notification
- a subsequent notification under section 4 does not affect validity of earlier acquisition proceedings
- plea of limitation under section 11-A cannot be raised after delay and laches
- especially after possession has been taken
- notice under section 9 can be validly issued based on earlier declaration under section 6
- writ court may decline amendment to raise new grounds after unexplained delay
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 213
Writ Petition No. 7111 of 1999
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, V.M. Kanade
Mr. M.L. Patil, Mr. V.S. Gokhale, Mr. G.S. Hegde
Sidhappa Gurupadappa Bijargi
The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.V., Sangli; The State of Maharashtra; The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the land acquisition proceedings initiated pursuant to notification dated 27/01/1998 under section 4 and notice dated 09/04/1998 under section 9, and to set aside the acquisition.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the respondents issued notice under section 9 without first issuing a declaration under section 6, rendering the proceedings illegal. He also later argued that the award was passed beyond the period of limitation under section 11-A.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner had earlier challenged the acquisition initiated by notification dated 24/09/1987 in Writ Petition No. 130 of 1989, in which the court granted a stay. That petition was dismissed on 05/06/1996, vacating the stay and allowing the respondents to proceed.
Issues
Whether notice under section 9 dated 09/04/1998 was invalid for want of a prior declaration under section 6.
Whether the land acquisition proceedings based on the 1987 notification had lapsed due to the issuance of a subsequent notification under section 4 in 1998.
Whether the award passed on 31/08/1998 was barred by limitation under section 11-A, and whether the petitioner could be allowed to raise this ground belatedly by amending the petition.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondents should not have proceeded to issue notice under section 9 without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 6, making the entire proceedings invalid.
The award was passed beyond the period of two years from the date of declaration, as the stay was vacated on 05/06/1996 and the award was passed only on 31/08/1998, thus hitting the bar under section 11-A.
The notice under section 9 dated 09/05/1998 specifically referred to the declaration under section 6 published on 13/10/1988 and was in furtherance of the 1987 acquisition, not the 1998 notification.
The earlier proceedings were validly continued after dismissal of the 1989 writ petition, with an addendum to the section 6 declaration issued on 14/08/1998 and final award passed thereafter.
The petitioner could not rely on the 1998 notification to argue that earlier proceedings had lapsed, as no right accrues under section 4, and the respondents were free not to proceed under that notification.
The plea of limitation was never raised in the original petition, and the petitioner offered no explanation for the delay; meanwhile possession of the land had been taken, and it was too late to amend the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
Notice under section 9 issued on 09/05/1998 was valid as it pertained to the earlier acquisition initiated under notification dated 24/09/1987 and declaration under section 6 dated 13/10/1988, not to the later 1998 notification. No right accrues to an interested person merely from issuance of a notification under section 4, and the acquiring authority is not bound to proceed with acquisition under such notification; a subsequent notification does not render earlier proceedings lapsed. A plea that the award is barred by limitation under section 11-A for being passed beyond two years from the date of declaration cannot be raised for the first time after unexplained delay and laches, especially after the award has been passed and possession has been taken.
Judgment Excerpts
The notice dated 09/05/1998, on the face of it, no where discloses that the same was issued in furtherance of the notification dated 27/01/1998. On the contrary, the notice specifically refers to the declaration under section 6 published in official gazette on 13/10/1988.
Whether respondents should proceed with particular land acquisition proceedings consequent to the issuance of notification under section 4, it is for the concerned authorities to decide and interested person relating to the land which is a subject matter of notification under section 4 cannot acquire any right of insistence on proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings merely on account of issuance of notification under section 4.
In the circumstances, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to seek any amendment to the petition to incorporate the ground regarding bar of limitation in passing of the award.
Procedural History
Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by notification under section 4 dated 24/09/1987. After objections under section 5-A, a declaration under section 6 was published on 13/10/1988. The petitioner challenged these proceedings in Writ Petition No. 130 of 1989, where the court granted a stay. That petition was dismissed on 05/06/1996, vacating the stay. A new notification under section 4 was issued on 27/01/1998, but the respondents decided not to proceed under it. Instead, they issued an addendum to the section 6 declaration on 14/08/1998 and a notice under section 9 on 09/05/1998. The award was passed on 31/08/1998, and notices under section 12(2) were issued, with possession of the land taken on 13/01/1999. The present writ petition, filed in 1999, challenged the proceedings based on the 1998 notification and the notice dated 09/04/1998, but the court found the impugned notice related to the 1987 acquisition.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 11-A, 12(2)
