LAXMI DEVI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 179 · Decided: 03-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~2015] 11S.C.R.179 
LAXMIDEVI 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3385 of 2012) 
JULY03, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
s. 17 - Land expropriated by the State pursuant to the 
exercise of special powers in cases of urgency contained in 
s. 17 thereof for construction of residential quarters for State 
officials - Award not passed within stipulated time making 
the proceedings lapse - Subsequent notifications also lapsed 
- Writ petition on the ground that resort to s. 17 was malafide 
- Writ petition disposed of with direction to pass award within 
4 months - Award not passed till date - On appeal, Held: 
Appellants land owners were being denied just and fair 
compensation for their land in proceedings which 
commenced in 1987 despite the directions of the High Court 
passed as early as in 1988 to pass an award within four 
months - Respondent State ·is directed to initiate fresh 
acquisition proceedings or take any other action available 
to it in acc9rdance with law - This would upholds. 11 A even 
in cases of acquisition u/s. 17 while preserving the 
requirement of s. 17 that the unencumbered possession of 
land remain vested in th~ Government - It also protects the 
· rights 9f the landowners who had approached the court to 
stop the government from undoing an emergency acquisition 
while leaving in the cold equally aggrieved land owners 
seeking to enforce their right to fair compensation for their 
land - Even equity demands that the party bearing the 
consequence of the delay in the award ought not to be the 
179 
A 
B 
180 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
innocent land owner but the errant State - Respondent State 
is restrained from contending that the land is no longer 
required by it or that it should revert to the appellants. 
s. 11 A-Acquisition - Distinction between setting aside 
B of acquisition and reversion of possession to the erstwhile 
landowners. 
Legislation: Held: A statute prescribes the manner in 
which an action is to be performed, it must be carried out 
c strictly in consonance thereto or not at all. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The right to file Objections to the Section 
4 Notification, recognized by Section SA mandate that 
D Objection must be filed within thirty days of the issuance 
of the Notification. Section SA further obligates the 
Collector to submit a Report to the Government in 
respect of the Objections preferred by persons 
interested in the land, as well as pertaining to any aspect 
E of the nature of the land proposed to be acquired. 
Section 6 envisages the making of a Declaration by the 
appropriate Government to the effect that the specified 
lands are needed for a public purpose, or for a Company; 
F and post 1984, this Declaration has to be made within 
one year of the date of the publication of the Section 4 
Notification. Thereafter the Collector has to take Orders 
for the acquisition of land and to mark and measure it. 
Section 11 postulates the holding of an enquiry by the 
G Collector into Objections on sundry grounds. Section 
11A has been introduced by Act68of1984 prescrib!ng a 
limitation of two years for the making of an Award by the 
Collector. It is only post this event that Section 16 
empowers the Collector to take possession of the land 
H which thereupon vests absolutely in the Govarnment, 
LAXMI LEV: v. STATE OF BIHAR 
181 
free from all encumbrances. Section 17 is not a pandect; A 
it could have been devised by Parliament to be so, inter 
alia, by the use of a non obstante clause, or in the 
alternative by clear and unequivocal language. The 
salient concomitants of Section 17(1) deserve 
enumeration. Firstly, the Section is attracted even though B 
an Award has not been made which clearly indicates that 
the completion of this exercise has not been obliterated 
or dispensed with but has been merely deferred. An 
unambiguous and unequivocal statement could have 
been made excluding the requirement of publishing an C 
Award. Secondly, it is·available only on the expiration of 
fifteen days from the issuance of the Section 9 notice. 
Thi~ hiatus of fifteen days must be honoured as its 
purpose appears to be to enable the affected or 0 
aggrieved parties to seek appropriate remedy before 
they are divested of the possession and the title over 
their land. Thirdly, possession of the land can be taken 
only if it is needed for public purpose, which term stands 
defined i

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