GANPATIBAI AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 215 · Decided: 23-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GANPATIBAI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 2006 
[ARJJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHW AR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6-Notification and declaration 
under-Challenged by filing civil suit-Held, Suit not maintainable-Remedy 
is by filing Writ petition-Gross delay in approaching Writ Court- -Writ C 
petition rightly dismissed-Delay and /aches. 
By virtue of a scheme under·M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 
1973, certain lands were covered for acquisition. Pursuant to the scheme, 
Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 
16.9.1987 while the declaration under Section 6 was issued on 6.12.1988. D 
Certain land owners whose lands were acquired filed a suit in 1990. The Civil 
Judge, by order dated 16.3.2001, held the suit to be not maintainable. On 
20.7.2001, the Writ Petition was filed for quashing the Notification, 
declaration, scheme as also that the award which had been published on 
8.6.2001. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there was gross 
delay in approaching the Court. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In State of Bihar*, this Court had observed that Civil Suit 
was not maintainable and the remedy to question notification under Section 4 F 
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was by filing a writ petition. The 
appellant pursued the suit in the Civil Court. Undisputedly, right from the 
beginning the State Government and the Authority were taking the stand that 
the suit was not maintainable. The stand that five years after the filing of the 
suit, the decision of this Court in 1995 was rendered does not in any way 
help the appellant. The appellant continued to prosecute the suit till 2001 even G 
after the decision had held that suit was not maintainable. That being so, the 
High Court was justified in holding that the writ petition was highly belated. 
(217-F-H; 218-A( 
State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and, Ors.,* (1995) 4 SCC 229, relied 
215 
H 
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A on. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3609 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.2001 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, in L.P.A. No. 389/2001. 
Arvind Minocha for the Appellants. 
Sanjay Kapur, Shubhra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, Arti Singh, Adarsh 
Priyadarshi, C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray and Minakshi Sharma for the 
C Respondents. 
_The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by a 
D Division Bench of the M.P. High Court, Jabalpur dismissing appellants Letters 
Patent Appeal by order dated 7.11.2001. By the said order, the Division Bench 
dismissed the Letters Pat_ent Appeal directed against order of learned Single 
Judge dated 23.8.2001 dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant. 
E 
Appellant had challenged notification issued under Section 4 and 
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 
'Act') and the subsequent award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The 
writ application was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and also on 
the ground that the award had already been passed. The Division Bench 
concurred with the view expressed by learned Single Judge. 
F 
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court should 
not have considered the writ petition to be belated. Jn fact, a suit was filed 
in the year 1990 immediately after notification was issued under Section 4 and 
declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16.9.1987 and 6.12.1988 respectively. 
The suit was held to be not maintainable by learned Civil Judge, Indore on 
G 16.3 .200 I. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed. 
H 
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-State of M.P. and its 
functionaries and the Indore Development Authority (in short the 'Authority') 
supported the order of learned Single Judge and the appellate judgment. 
GANPATIBA!v. STATEOFM.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 
217 
A few dates need to be noted for dealing with the rival contentions. The A 
Authority passed a resolution on 13 .3 .1981 to frame scheme under Section 
50(1) of M.P .. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiriiyam, 1973 (in short the 
'Adhiniyam'). The scheme was finally published in terms of Section 50(7) of 
the Adhiniyam on 1.5.1984. Certain additional lands were included in the 
scheme on 22.6.1984. Notification under Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.