LexLT. GOVERNOR OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus AVINASH SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A B c .D E F H LT. GOVERNOR OF HIMAC.HAL PRAD~SH v. AVINASH SHARMA April 28, 1970 [J. C. SWAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ;] H3 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ss. 4, 6. 17(1) and (4) and 48-tand 1-f:'.~ting in Gover11111ent after notification under S. l 7t 1 )-// ccut rei·1..•rt to original Oll'ner by cllncellation of notification under s. 21 of the Crut'nt! c·lauses Act, 1891-0riginal possession of acquirt>d land taken ilh·ga/fy- lf land \'ests in Govt. free fro111.enc111nhrances IS days t1fter s. 17\ I l 1101ification. Possession of an area of lan<l in Himachal Pradesh including some }Jn<l helonging to the respondent was taken in December I %3 by the Deputy (~·on1missioner· and the land was handed over to the Air Force.Authori- ties. Subsequently, on March 31, 1964, a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. was published. Thereafter by a composite notification under s. 6 and s. l 7 (l) & 14) date'd May 16, 1964, tbc ~tate Government declared that the land was needed for a public purpose, that since it was required urgently, the enquiry under s. 5-A of the Act was dispensed with, and that posse5'1ion of the land woµld be taken under s. 17(1) of the Act after the expiry of 15 days of the notice under s. 9(1) of the Act. The Collector then served notices under s. 9 in June 1964. On October 5, 1965, the State Government published an order can- oe!ling the notifications dated March 31, 1964 and May 16, 1964, for acqui· 'ition of the land. The respondent flied a writ petition and prayed that the notification dated October 5, 1965, be quashed· and that a writ of nll111danius be issued directing the authorities to discharge their duties in lriw· to determine compensation for compulsory and urgent acquisition. The petition was allowed by the Judicial Commissioner. · ln appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that under s. 21 of the General Clauses Act, the State had the power to cancel the notifications at any time and that s. 48 of the Land Acquisiti•n Act did not trench upon that power; furtherltlore, where the Government had obtained JlO'Session illegally or under some unlawful transaction and notification under sec. 17 (I) was issued, the land did not vest in the Government 1iree from all encumbrances; and that the notification issued by the State Gove1nment under Sec. 17 (I) and ( 4) was without authority because it did not recite that the land notified was "waste or arable". HELD : Dismissing the appeal, When possession of the land- is taken under s.17 (I) of the Land Acqui- sition Act the land vests in the Government. There is no provision by which land statutorily vested in the Government reverts to the original -owner by mere cancellation of _the. notific_atio~ under s. 17 ( 1). Although the government may cancel or rescmd notifications under section 4 and 6 -of the Land Acquisition Act a notification under s. 17 ( 1) cannot be can- celled nor can it be withdrawn in exercise of the powers under Sec. 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. Any other view would enable the State Government to circumvent the specific provision by relying upon a general power in the General clauses Act, [415 H, 417 C.E] State of Madhya Pradesl1 and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Slwrma & Ors., [1966) 3 S.C.R. 557, referred to .. 414 SUPREME COURt ?.EPOKTS [IY71J I S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRrso1cr10N: Civil Appeal No. 514 of 1967. . ~ Appeal by special leave from the juogment and order datod September 27, 1966 of the Judicial Commis•ioner's Court at Simla and Civil Writ Petition No. 30 of 1965. Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General, V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey. for the appellants. Bishan Narain and 0. N. Mahindroo, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court wa,> delivered by Shah, J, The Deputy Conmnssioner, Mahasu, apparently acting on the request of the Air Force authorities took possession on December 23, 1963, of an area of land in village Galu Chak. That area included 8-14-0 bighas belonging to the respondent. The reeord does not disclose the authority under which posses- sion of the land was taken and delivered over to the Air Force. There was correspondence between the Air Force Authorities and the State of Himachal Prndesh in regard to the land occu- pied by the Air Force and ultimately on March 31, 1964, a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published notifying that the area of land (including the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.