LexHANSRAJ H. JAIN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
HANSRAJ H. JAIN
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
JULY 14, 1993
B
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
Sections 4, 6, l JA-Land acquisition-Acquisition of huge tracts of
C land for setting up township of New Bombay-Delay in acquisition proceed-
ings-Effect of-Held, proceedings completed within time frame under Sec-
tion II-A cannot be negatived on ground of inordinate delay even though
when acquisition started there was no time frame for completing the
same-Directions for allotting alternate sites to even those land owners whose
petitions had earlier been dismissed by this Cowt.
D
The respondent State issued notices under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 between February 1968 and February 1970 in order
to acquire huge tracts of land, covering 86 villages adjoining the city of
Bombay for the purpose of setting up a new township to be known as New
E . Bombay. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued in 1971 and
1972. The acquisition proceedings were concluded by giving awards in 1985
and 1986. Validity of the acquisition was challenged ~y filing several writ
petitions which were dismissed by the High Court. The land owners filed
the appeal~ by special leave.
F
The appellants contended that (1) the acquisition proceedings were
invalid· on account of the inordinate delay in completing th& proceedings,
and the same could not be brought to life by making award within the
stipulated time with the help of Section 11-A of the Act; (2) the purported
acquisition proceedings were a colourable device in order to peg the price
G of the land as prevailing on the date of notification and were initiated
without framing a scheme or plan and without considering the actual
requirement; (3) non-exclusion of land comprising Gaothan, houses con-
tiguous thereto and hamlets containing not less than ten households from
acquisition proceedings as per avowed policy of the Government was illegal
and void and; (4) in the event of the acquisition proceedings being held as
H valid, directions be issued for allotment o{ alternative plots as per the
216
H.H.JAIN v. STATEOFMAHARASHTRA
217
scheme formulated by the State Government in 1976 so that no effect to A
acquisition should be given without making the plots available to the
affected parties.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1.1. The acquisition proceedings were not ma/a fide or invalid B
despite the lamentable delay caused in completing the same. The area
proposed to be developed into New Bombay is a very large area and the
lands appertained to about 86 villages. It is reasonably expected that
substantial time would be required for detailed planning for the develop·
ment of the area. Besides, about 25000 objection petitions had to be C
disposed of against the proposed acquisition. In a project of this mag-
nitude, substantial time is required to complete the acquisition proceed-
ings. [231-H; 232-A; 233-A-B)
Aflatoon and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., [1975) 1 SCR
802, relied on.
D
1.2. In view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition
Act it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings cannot be completed
within time frame under the Section even thought when acquisition
proceedings were started, there was no time frame for competing the same.
Acquisition proceedings completed within the time frame under Section E
11-A cannot be negatived on the ground of inordinate delay.
[233-D-E; 234-B]
Kaliyappan v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1989) 1 SCC 113 and Gujarat
State Corporation v. Valiji Mulji Soneji and Ors., [1973) SCR 905, relied on.
F
2.1. It cannot be said that there was no planning for development of
acquired area and the acquisition proceedings were intitiated casually.
Goverment's decision to set ·up the new township by acquiring the land
appertaining to 86 villages was based on reports of expert committees. In G
order to develop the huge urban complex the Government brought into
force the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and estab-
lished 'City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra
Limited'. There is no manner of doubt that lot of deliberations were made
by expert bodies before taking the decision to set up such a huge urban
complex. [231-C-E]
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. A. Mohammad Yousef & Ors., [1991)
4 sec 224, inapplicable.
2.2. Once itExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.