LexM/S. SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 220 M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.· (Civil Appeal Nos. 10394-10396 OF 2011) AUGUST 17, 2015 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] c LandAcquisitionAct, 1894-s. 17, 4, 6, 5A, 11A-Land acquisition - Lapse of - Land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1981 lapsed due to delay in publishing the award - Initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings by the State - Appellant-land owners sought release of their land - High D Court held that since 1981 acquisition proceedings had not been withdrawn by the State and the appellant did not challenge the same, possession of the land as well as the title thereof vested with the State despite the delay in publication of the award- On appeal, held: Old notifications E are superseded and obliterated by subsequent ones, as the subsequent acquisition proceeding manifest and indicate the intention of the State to abandon the preceding one - On facts, 1981 acquisition had lapsed- There is no reason or basis to allow the State to revive the lapsed acquisition - F Further, the actions of the State have denied the appellant just and fair compensation as envisag(!d and postulated in the Act, for its land from which it was dispossessed well over three decades ago - 1981 acquisition is set aside for non- G compliance with the provisions of s.11A- Ratio of Satendra Prasad Jain is confined to the proposition that the State is precluded from setting aside the acquisition for its own failure to carry out compliance with s. 11 A and once possession has been taken by the State u/s. 17, it is no tonger open to the H State to relinquish or return ihe land to the legal entity who 220 M/S.SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. STATE OF BIHAR 221 had been dispossessed from it - Thus, the acquisition A proceedings with regard to the said land have lapsed- State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings or take any other action available to it in accordance with law - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- s.24. B Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shri Avinash Sharma (1970) 2 SCC 149:1971 (1) SCR 413; Satendra Prasad Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993) 4 SCC 369:1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336; Laxmi Devi vs. C State of Bihar 2015 (7) SCALE 555; Land Acquisition Officer-cum-RDO vs. A. Ramachandra Reddy(2011) 2 SCC 447:2011 (1) SCR 324; Bhimandas Ambwani vs Delhi Power Company Limited (2013) 14 SCC 195 - referred to. D Case Law Reference 1971 (1) SCR 413 referred to. Para 3 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to. Para3 2015 (7) SCALE 555 referred to. Para4 2011 (1) SCR 324 referred to. Para 7 (2013) 14 sec 195 referred to. Para 7 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10394.-10396 of 2011 E F From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in C.W.J.C. No. G 1608 of 2004 along with C.W. J.C. No. 15767 of 2004 and C.W.J.C. No.13769of2004 C.A. Sundaram, C. Mukund,Ashok K. Jain, Pankaj Jain, Zafar lnayat, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, Yamini Sharma, H Bijoy Kumar Jain for the Appellant. 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A Sanjeev Sen, Prerna Singh, Shubhra Rai, Rashmi B Srivastava, Gopal Singh, Shabyashachi Patra, Sanjeev Kumar (for Khaitan & Co.) forthe Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Th.eAppeal before us involves an acquisition of land under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for brevity). The Respondent State initiated acquisition proceedings in 1981 by Notifications under Section c 4 and Section 6 of the L.A. Act, both dated 25.3.1981, invoking the urgency provisions contained in Section 17. The operation of Section 5A was simultaneously made inapplicable by resorting to Section 17(4). Possession of the land was taken by the Respondent State after almost five months on 20.8.1981. D The land has subsequently been declared to be a 'Protected Forest' as envisaged in Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as per Notification dated 4.9.1990. Thereafter, proceedings were once again initiated by the Respondent State vide another Section 4 Notification dated 24.5.1995. This E was followed by a N~tification dated 17 .8.1996 issued under the urgency provisions of Section 17, whereby Section 5A was yet again dispensed with. The Appellant landowner challenged these proceedings by way of a wri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.