M/S. JETHMULL BBOJRAJ versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 25-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
193 
M/S. mTHMULL BBOJRAJ 
v. 
STATE OF BmAR a ORS. 
January 25, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND D. 0. PALElWl, JI.] 
Lrmd Acquialtion Act (1 o/ 1874), u. 9 and 11-&o,. of. 
In 1954 the lands in dispute were notifted under the Indian ~ 
Act, 1927. Later, in order to acquire and include them in the adloinln.2 
Government forest, GoVel'llment notified them under s. ·4 of thi Lani! 
Acquisition Act, 18!>4. Government also took action under s. 17(4) of 
the Act, dispenaed with the proceedings under s. SA, and iuued the nol!A-
cation under s. 6. Thueafrer, proceedings were taken under 91. 9 and 11, 
but Government decided that it was not worthwhile to acquire the entire 
area and withdrew some of the lands from acquisition. 
. 
The appellant moved the High Court unsllCCelSfully, under Art. 226, 
for directions to award him compensation in reapect of those lands also. 
ID _appeal to this Court, it waa contended that: (1) Since the Govern· 
ment had taken possession in 1954, Government became full ownen of 
the lands when notifications were issued under. s. 6 of the. Land Acquisition 
Act; and (2) the lands had been actually taken ~ok>o of by the Col· 
lector under s. 17 (I) and Gl!Vemment became full owners when pnblic 
notice was aiven under s. 9(1). 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) There waa no satisfactory eVidence to show that the 
Government had taken possession of the lands in 1954. Therefore, tho 
High "Court was justified in not pronouncing on the question in a petition 
under Art. 226. 
(2) (a) Under s. 17(1) the Collector cannot take poaaeuion unlea 
F 
Government directs him to do so. There is no material on record to show 
that Government had given any such direction, nor is there any material 
to show that the·Collector had taken possession under s. 17(1). U960-H] 
Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avlnash Sharma, (1971) I S.C.R. 
413, explained and distinguished. 
(b) The expression 'whenever the appropriate Government ao directs' 
G 
in s. 17(1) refers to the taking df possession and not to the declaration 
of urgency. But even in caaes ·of urgency, Government may not think it 
necessary to take immediate profession. Hence, it could not be said that on 
the expiry of 15 days from the publication of the notice under s. 9( I), the 
lands had vested in the Govel"nment. [198 G-H; 199 ArC) 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDlCTION : C.A. No. 379 and 741 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order da~ October 14, 1966 
pf the Patna High Court in CivilWrii 1qrisdi~~ c.& No. 434 
1111d 435 of 1966, 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 s.c.R. 
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for the appellant 
(in C.A. 741 of 1967) 
A. K. Sl!h, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for the 
appellant (in C.A. No. 379 of 1967) 
Niren D~, Attorney General for India, D. Goburdhun, for the 
respondents (in both the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J; In tb,ese appeals by certificate, the only question that 
arises for decision is whether on the facts and in the circumstances 
of these cases, .the G_overnment oi Bihar was competent to with-
draw from- acquisition certain lairids sought to be acquired under 
Acquisition Cases Nos. 3 and 4 of 1959-60 before the Additional 
Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh. 
The lands concerned in these cases were notified for acquisi-
tion in _1959 under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (to 
be hereinafter referred to as the Act) under two different notifica-
tions. 
At abOut the same time, the Government also took action. 
under s. 17 (4) · of the Act ,and 4ispensed with proceedings under 
s. SA. Simultaneously. notifications under s. 6 were also issued. 
Thereafter proceedings under ss, 9 ·and 11 were .taken. 
Whcm 
the acquisition proceedings were pending before the Land Acqub 
sition Officer, the Government withdrew from acquisitioo some 
ol the lands earlier notified under ss. 4 and 6. 
Consequently the 
Land Acquisition Officer excluded the comp insation jn: respect 
of those lands from the computation made b) him CJ.flier. 
The 
appellant (common appellant in both the appc tis) )l&g aggriev-
ed by that exclus_ion moved the High Court of Patna under Art. 
226 of the Constitution seeking directions from _that court to the 
Land Acquisition Officer to award him compensation in respect 
of those lands as well. 
The High Court rejected those writ peti-
ti0111S. 
Hence these appeals. 
The lands in question are situate in the v

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