LexJAYAMMA & ORS. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 245 JAYAMMA & ORS. v THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DIST., HASSAN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 4345-4429 of 2013) MAY 6, 2013. [G.S. SINGHVI AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Arts. 226 and 142 - Writ petition seeking direction to Land Acquisition Collector to complete acquisition proceedings - Held: Whether to acquire a particular property A B c or not is for the Government to decide - Court cannot compel Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards in respect of land 0 acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed - In the instant case, since owners have suffered damages, they are entitled to compensation - In order to do complete justice, it is ordered that each of the petitioners shall be paid a lump sum amount of Re. 1 lakh towards damages for the hardships E they have undergone on account of seepage resulting in dampness and cracks to their residential buildings - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6, 48 and 36. Art. 226 - Writ petition seeking direction to Land Acquisition Collector to act in terms of letter issued by F Secretary to Government - Held: Is wholly misconceived - If a subordinate authority in Government does not act in terms of direction or instruction issued by superior authority, it is not for court to order compliance, if it is not otherwise governed by a statutory procedure. G Agricultural land of the appellants had been acquired for an irrigation canal. Their houses came within the seepage affected area of the canal. Proceedings to acquire the property were initiated, but were not 245 H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201~] .3 S.C.R. A completed. The High Court in writ petitions directed the Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards. In writ appeals the stand of the State authorities was that the hardship of the writ petitioners was being resolved and for that purpose acquisition was not necessary. The B Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeals accordingly. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Whether to acquire a particular property C or not is for the Government to decide. It is not within the jurisdiction of the court to compel the Government to acquire any property, otherwise than as per the Land Acquisition Act. Court cannot compel the Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards in respect of the D land acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed. In the instant case, the declaration u/s 6 had already lapsed by the time the writ petitioners approached the High Court. This crucial factual position has not been taken note of by the High Court. [para 8-9) [250-F-H; 251- E F-G] 1.2. Besides, under the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has F not been taken, at any stage prior to the passing of the award. In case the owner, in consequence of such withdrawal, has suffered any damages, he is entitled to compensation in that regard u/s 48 of the Act. In the case on hand, there is no question of any such Notification on withdrawal since the proceedings had already lapsed. G Admittedly, no possession had been taken. Therefore, s. 36 does not apply. [para 8-9) [250-G-H; 251-A-F] 1.3. Even otherwise, the writ petition was wholly misconceived. The prayer is for direction to the Land H Acquisition Collector to act in terms of letter issued to JAYAMMA & ORS. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 247 HASSAN DIST., HASSAN him by the Secretary to the Government. If a subordinate A authority in the Government does not act in terms of the direction or instruction issued by the superior authority, it is not for the Court to compel that subordinate authority to comply with such instruction or direction, if it is not otherwise governed by a statutory procedure. [para 1 OJ B [252-C.;E] 1.4. However, the fact remains that the residential houses of the appellants are in the seepage affected area coming under the Canal. It has to be noted that the agricultural land of the petitioners had already been C acquired and what remained was only the residential part. Petitioners had the grievance that on account of the seepage, there was dampness resulting also in cracks on the building. In view of the miseries suffered by these poor persons, it will not be just and fair to relegate them D to workout their remedies before civil court for damages, at this distance of time. Therefore, in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.