LexAWADH BIHARI YADAV AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AWADH BIHARI YADAV AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS AUGUST 31, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ss.-4, 6, 11, 11-A, 17, ~Acquisition of land by the Govt. under emergent procedure---cf'ossession of land taken- Award not in proper fonn with illegible signatur~Whether should be treated A B as award-Whether acquisition proceedings. lapsed for want of proper C award-Held, award made in substantial compliance with the directions of the High Court, valid; proper fonn of award not essential in emergent proceed- ings; pro-ceedings not lapsed. Constitution of India : Art. 226--Rule of Exhaustion of Alternate RemedJ-Application, title suit and writ petition filed by the Society at the D same time--whether writ petition liable to be dismissed-Held, Extraordinary situation wa"ant extraordinary remedy; approach of High Court co"ect in not dismissing the writ petition. A block of 25.09 acres of land was acquired by the State Govt. under E the normal procedure, at the instance of Budha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd., (Society). Land was to be provided to the profess~onals by the Society. Acquisition proceedings were completed. Emergency acquisition proceedings were initiated by the Govt. under ss.4, 17 ( 4) to acquire 64.48 acres of land at the request of Patna Develop- F ment Authority (Authority), for its Boaring Road Development Scheme. Out of this land, 32.48 acres were to be delivered to the Society. Notifica- tion and declaration were made and possession of land was taken by the Authority and the Society. The Society deposited Rs. one million with the_ Authority. G The entire compensation amount was not deposited by the Authority. Further, it decided not to acquire the lands sought except for a small portion required for road construction. The Authority passed a resolution to this effect and consequently two awards were passed for 4.41 acres and 3.32 acres of land. H 197 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C~R. A The Society questioned the resolution of the Authority by filing a writ petition. The validity of the acquisition was up- held and the resolution was quashed by the High Court on 23.5.84. The Collector was directed to prepare the award. Further, it was observed by the High Court that no rights accrued to the owners of unauthorised constructions on the land. B The special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed. An award dt. 31.7.84 was passed. As the acquisition proceedings were not completed, the Society filed a writ petition in the High Court against the Authority, State of Bihar etc., to give effect to the earlier judgment dt. 23.5.84. The Society also filed an C application under the Bihar Public Encroachment Land Act, 1976 before the Collector and a title suit in the Sub-Court, for the eviction of encroachers and the restoration of possession of land. Meanwhile, three other writ petitions were filed in the High Court D contending that the proceedings had lapsed under s. 11-A of the Act. By a common judgment dt. 30.7.93 the High Court dismissed these three petitions and allowed the petition by the Society partly. The Land Acquisi- tion Officer was also directed to complete the award in form - 15. E F Three special leave petitions on the same facts were filed in this Court in which the main contentions of the appellants were that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under s.11-A of the Act; the proceed- ings dt. 31.7.84 did not constitute an award as the proper form was not conformed to and the Society was not entitled to the relief prayed in the writ petition as it had already availed the alternate remedies. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD: 1.1. The acquisition on 'proceedings had not lapsed under s.11-A of the land Acquisition Act as the possession of land was taken under emergency proceedings under s.17(1) of the Act. It was not open to G the Govt. to withdraw from the acquisition. In such a case, s.11-A could not be attracted. [207-C-D] 1.2. The emergent acquisition proceedings could not lapse even if no award was made within the period prescribed by S.11-A. The land H statutorily vested in the Govt. could not revert to the owners. [208 A-BJ -.. .. AB. YADAVv. STATE 199 Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1993] 4 SCC 369, relied A on. 2.1. The proceedings of 31.7.84 were in substance an award. The procet:dings were initia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.