LexBANKATLAL versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 879 BANKATLAL v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6087-6087A of 2002) JUNE 30, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 11 A - Applicability of, where land acquired under the provisions of Nagpur c Improvement Trust Act, 1966 - Held: Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966 is complete code py itself except for the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which stood legislatively incorporated in the State Act - Subsequent ·.amendments to the Land Acquisition Act including 0 amendment made vide Act 68of1984 inserting s. 11A would have no effect on the acquisition made or to be made under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966 - On facts, the land acquisition proceedings made under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966 not hit by s. 11A as the said Section was brought into effect after 10 years from the judgment wherein the award was declared illegal - Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966. Review - Review application,_ Maintainability • Held: In absence of a statutory provision, review application cannot be entertained - Even in garb of clarification, earlier order cannot be modified or corrected - On facts, it is not necessary to decide the question as to whether the Collector has power of review as on merit itself, thus, interference with the order passed by the High Court not called for. The question which arose for consideration before this Court was whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable to the cases where. 879 E F G H 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.R. A land is acquired under the provisions of Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966. Land which was sought to be acquired, was owned by the predecessor in title of the appellant. Notification 8 was issued u/s. 39 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1966 for acquisition of the said land. Thereafter, declaration was issued under Section 45 of the Act. Subsequently, notices were served u/ss. 9(3), (1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the appellant's C father:-DJS. DJS then claimed compensation. Thereafter, award was passed u/s. 11 of the 1894 Act fixing the compensation. DJS challenged the award before the High Court. Subsequently, the Acquiring Authority took over the possession of the said land. Thereafter, the High Court set aside the award only with respect to D compensation to be paid in favour of DJS. Subsequently, DJS died. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the land acquisition proceedings and an interim stay was granted. During pendency, Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was brought into effect from 24th E September, 1984. Appellant withdrew the writ petition and subsequently filed a suit challenging the acquisition proceedings. The respondent no. 1 by letter dated 20th June, 1998 informed the appellant that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 11A of the Land F Acquisition Act, 1894, there was no scope to pass a fresh award in the acquisition proceedings. Respondent no. 2, filed an applicci.tion before the respondent no. 1 for recalling the said order. Respondent no. 1 recalled the order dated 20th June, 1998 and ordered that the case G be reopened. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition contending that the Collector as defined in Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act is not a "court" and power of review has not been expressly conferred on the Collector, thus, has no power to review its decisions/ H BANKATLAL v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION 881 OFFICER orders passed; and that the respondent no. 1 did not A consider the fact that the provisions of Section 11 A of the Land Acquisition Act were also made applicable to the proceedings pending on the date of the commencement of the Act 68 of 1984 as the award was set aside by the High Court. The High Court granted an ad-interim stay of B the proceedings. Respondent no. 1 contended that the Land Acquisition Officer being a court could recall his order and, therefore, there was no illegality committed by him in recalling the order dated 20th June, 1998. Appellant then filed an application in the writ petition for certain C directions to the respondents. The Division Bench of High Court dismissed the writ petition. The review petition against the same was also dismissed. Hence, the instant appeal~. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D HELD: 1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.