COMPETENT AUTHORITY versus BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 23-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

COMPETENT AUTHORITY 
A 
v. 
BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2005 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition: 
National Highways Act, 1956: Sections 3A, 3C and 3D 
c 
Notification for compulsory acquisition of land-Brief description of 
the land sought to be acquired was not given in the notification-Land 
owners filed writ petition challenging the not~fication-High Court held 
notification as bad in law-High Court also held that no useful purpose 
would be served by quashing the notification as possession of the land had D 
already been taken-An additional amount calculated at 30% over and 
above the compensation already determined was ordered to be paid to the 
writ petitioners-Correctness of-Held: The notification fails to meet the 
legal requirement of a brief description of the land which renders the 
notification invalid-Absence of a plan in the notification renders the right 
to file objection sunder S. 3C nugatory-The notification violated the very E' 
statute from which it derived its force and, therefore delay in challenging it 
would not clothe in with legitimacy-Compensation payable to the writ 
petitioners be determined as on the date on which they were deprived of 
possession of their /ands-However, the impugned notification is not quashed 
in order not to disturb what was already taken place by way of construction F 
of the national highway. 
The respondents-writ petitioners challenged the compulsory acquisition 
of their lands vide a Central Government Notification under Section 3A of 
the National Highways Act, 1956. The High Court held that the impugned 
Notification regarding compulsory acquisition of land was bad in law. However, G 
keeping in view the fact that possession of the acquired land had already taken 
by the authorities, the High Court felt that no useful purpose would be served 
by quashing the Notification. Accordingly, an additional amount calculated at 
300/o over and above the compensation already determined was ordered to be 
\laid to the writ petitioners. Hence the appeal. 
421 
fl 
422 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The following questions arose before the Court :-
(a) Whether the impugned Notification fulfils the statutory requirement 
of a brief description of the land sought to be acquired? 
(b) Whether delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the 
B Notification under Section 3A(l) of the Natio1aal Highways Act, 1956 rendered 
the challenge liable to be rejected? 
(c) Whether failure to file objections to the Notification under Section 
3C could non-suit the petitioners in this case? 
C 
( d) Whether vesting of the acquired land in the Central Government in 
the present case could be said to be lawful? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. So far as the question whether the impugned Notification 
D meets the requirement of Section 3-A(l) of the National Highways Act, 1956 
regarding giving brief description of land is concerned that even though plot 
numbers of land in respect of each mouza are given, different pieces of land 
are acquired either as whole or in part. Wherever the acquisition is of a 
portion of a bigger piece of land, there is no description as to which portion 
E was being acquired. Unless it is known as to which portion was to be acquired, 
the petitioners would be unable to untlerstand the impact of acquisition or to 
raise any objection about user of the acquired land for the purposes specified 
under the Act or to make a claim for compensation. It is settled law that where 
a statue requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the act 
has to be done in that manner alone. Every word of the statute has to be given 
F its due meaning. The impugned notification fails to meet the statutory 
mandate. It is vague. The least that is required in such cases is that the 
acquisition notification should let the person whose land is sought to be 
acquired know what he is going to lose. The impugned notification in this 
case is, therefore, not in accordance with the law. (432-C-E) 
G 
2.1. The absence of any reference to a Plan in the impugned Notification 
and in fact non-availability of any Plan linked to the Notification, fortifies the 
argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the impugned 
Notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief description of the 
land which renders the Notification invalid. [433-FJ 
H 
2.2. The absence of a plan also re

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.