M/S LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 18-03-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_'f 
MIS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
MARCH 18, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act 1894-Part VII--'Section 4,6,9, 38-42, 48-Land 
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963-Rules 3,4 -Acquisition for housing 
scheme of a Company challenged by land owners-State showing compliance 
of mandatory requirements by filing Affidavits-High Court holding Rules 3 C 
& 4 not complied with-Order of High Court quashing acquisition set 
aside-Held, in the absence of any a/legation it cannot be said that statutory 
requirements not fulfilled 
Section 9-Notice to person interested-Specific admission by D 
Petitioners about receipt of notice-Held, Order of High Court that no 
notices given, incorrect-Acquisition upheld 
Sections 39-42, 48-Withdrawal of notification by State Government-
After taking possession of lands-Held not legal~Held, opportunity to be 
given to Company to show cause against withdrawal from acquisition. 
E 
Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227-Challenge to notification of 
acquisition made after inordinate delay-Held, the writ petition is barred by 
latches. 
The State of Gujarat acquired lands of certain private owners in District F 
Surat for the purpose of the housing scheme of the Appellant's employees 
under Pat VII-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondents, private owners 
challenged the acquisition by filing two writ petitions on the ground that the 
State Government acted without any authority of law and in purported exercise 
of the powers conferred upon it by committing fraud on the statute and by G 
the colourable exercise of the said power and also without application of 
mind. The land owners therefore sought quashing of the notification under 
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
In the third group of matters the State Government withdrew its notification 
and released the lands of the owners. This action of the State Government 
was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court and all the three H 
339 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court allowed 
the petitions filed by land owners and set aside the acquisition on the ground 
that the State Government has not complied with the mandatory requirements 
under Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and 
also on the ground that no notice 1rns served on the persons in possession 
B 
under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court dismissed 
the petition of the Appellant on the ground that the withdrawal by the State 
Government is justified. 
On appeal before this Court the Appellant contended that the High 
Court should have dismissed the petition of the land owners on ground of 
c !aches, that a notification under Section 4 has to be challenged within a 
reasonable time and for any petitioner to contend that it was challenged 
immediately after possession of the land was taken over was not relevant 
circumstance, that the Petitioners themselves admitted the receipt of notices 
under Section 9 and that it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court held 
that there was no notices under Section 9. 
D 
In the matter of withdrawal of notification by the State Government that 
Appellants contended that in respect of Survey Nos. 41/2 the possession of 
the land had already been taken by them and any action under Section 48 
(I) of the Act would be bad in law, that there was no notification issued under 
E Section 48 of the Act making withdrawal from acquisition and it is justiciable, 
that there cannot be any unilateral withdrawal and there has to be bona fide 
exercise of power in case the State Government decides to withdraw from 
acquisition before possession is taken over, that the observation of the High 
Court that it would be open to the Appellant to lay its claim and sue the State 
Government for damages if any suffered by it on account of the action of the 
F State Government in withdrawing from the acquisition was objectionable, 
that the observation of the High Court that the land was in reality not needed 
by the Appellant was incorrect, that as per the report of the Surat Urban 
Development Authority all the lands which were subject matter of acquisition 
in all the three Writ Petitions satisfied only 45% need for housing of the 
employees, that there was no ground for the State Government to withdraw 
G from acquisition when pro

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