ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NASIRUZZAMAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 435 · Decided: 02-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
NASIRUZZAMAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4(1 ), 6(1), 11, 11-A, 16, 17, 17( 1-A), 17( d}--Notification 
issued-Enqui1y under S.17(1-A) as amended by U.P. State-Possession 
taken and transfelTed to the Transport Nagar Sclzeme-High Cowt declming 
that the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed and directing delive1y of posses-
sion to the respondents--On appeal held: The Amendment has to be relied 
upon only in pending proceedings-Once possession was take11 in exercise of 
power under S.17(4) the lands stood vested in the State under S.16 ji'ee from 
A 
B 
c 
all e11cumbrances--Proceedings of 11otification imder S.4( 1) and declaration D 
under S.6 would not lapse-'-P1inciple of estoppel or res judicata does not 
apply where, to give effect to them would be to counter some statutory 
direction or prohibitio11---Respo11dents entitled to il'terest at 9% for one year 
from the date of taki11g possession and thereafter at 15% till deposit into 
Court. 
E 
Lt. Govemor of H.P. v.Avinash Shanna, [1971) 1 SCR 413; Sate11dra 
Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 369; Awadh Bihmi 
Yadav & Ors. Etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1995) 6 SCC 31 and Municipal 
Committee, Anuitsar & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1969) 3 SCR 447, 
relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12032 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.93 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 31398 of 1992. 
G 
Milan Banerjee and R.B. Mishra for the Appellants. 
In-person for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
435 
H 
436 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
B 
c 
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respon-
dent-in-person who is also a practising advocate. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 
of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on June 18, 1977 acquiring the 
large extent of land admeasuring 23 bighas and 19 biswas for Transport 
· Nagar Scheme. Enquiry under Section 5(1) of the Act was dispensed with 
in exercise of the power under Section 17(1-A), as amended by the Legis-
lature of the U .P. substituting the Act. Possession thereof was taken on 
November 2, 1977 and transferred to the Transport Nagar Scheme. Those 
lands stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act free from all 
encumbrances and stood transferred to the beneficiary. 
The question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court 
D was right in passing the order dated December 15, 1993 and the order 
dated January 29, 1990 declaring that the acquisition proceedings by opera-
tion of Sectionll-A, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, stood lapsed and 
direction given for delivery of possession to the respondents would be in 
accordance with law? The controversy is no longer res integra. In Lt. 
Govemor of H.P. v. Avinash Shanna, [1971] 1 SCR 413 this Court had laid 
E 
down that once the lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbran-
ces there is no question of divesting the land and res-vesting the land in 
the erstwhile owners. The only right the erstwhile owner has is as to the 
determination of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 
Act. In view of the fact that there was inordinate delay in passing the award 
F 
after the declaration under Section 6(1) was published, the Parliament in 
the Amendment Act introduced Section 11-A and directed that the Col-
lector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years 
from the date of the publication of the declaration. If no award is made 
within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land 
G shall lapse. Under the proviso, it was said that where the declaration has 
been published before the commencement of the Amendment Act, the 
award shall be made within a period of two years from the commencement 
of the Amendment Act. In the impugned judgment, it would appear that 
the learned Judges asked the counsel to verify whether the award came to 
be made within two years, as indicated. The counsel on verification had 
H stated that the award was not made within two years from the commence-
ALLAHABAD DEV.AUTHORITYv. NASIRUZZAMAN 
437 
ment of the Amendment Act, namely, September 24, 1984. Consequently, A 
the declaration was given that the notification under Section 4(1) and the 
declarati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.