MARKET COMMITTEE, HODAL versus KRISHAN MURARI AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 06-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
MARKET COMMITTEE, HODAL 
A 
v . 
. KRISHAN MURARJ AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KJRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisitioll Act, 1894 : 
,. 
Ss.4(1), 5-A, 17(4)-Acquisition of lan!}--Award made-W.it petitioll 
by la!ld ow!lers-High Cowt allowing w1it petition holding that dispellsing c 
• 
with inquily under S.5-A was invalid-Held, High Cowt !lot justified in 
inteifering at belated stage. 
Co!lstitution of India/Limitatioll Act, 1963 : 
Article 136/S. 5-Petitioll for special leave-Limitatioll Delay of 3240 D 
days-Co!ldo!led on proper and acceptable explanatio!l. 
A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published in respect of the lands of the respondent-land owners on 
22.1.1981 The award was made on 19.5.1984. The amount of compensation 
was received under protest on 19.12.1984. The land owners filed a writ E 
petition which was allowed by the High Court on 16.2.1985 holding that 
dispensing with enquiry under S.SA of the Act was invalid. Thereafter the 
matter was sent to the Central Agency in order to challenge the order of 
the High Court, and when it was discovered that the Central Agency did 
not take any steps as the matter related to the State Government, the 
F 
instant appeal by special leave was filed on 30.5.1994. Meanwhile the land 
owners claimed to have constructed oil mill on the land under ac11nisition. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The award having been validly made on May 19.1984 and G 
possession of the lands having been taken, the lands vest in the Govern· 
ment nnder S.16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 absolutely free from all 
encumbrances. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the 
exercise of power by the Government under S.17 ( 4) dispensing with the 
enr1uiry under S.SA at the belated stage. If the respondent had not made 
any application for reference under S.18, they may file the same within one H 
787 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
month. (789-E, 790-B] 
..,. 
2. Though, there is an inordinate delay of 3240 days, from February 26, 
1985 to May 30, 1994, the date on which the petition for special leave was 
filed, there is proper and acceptable explanation given by the appellants in 
this case for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The matter was sent to 
B 
the Central Agency and since the matter was of the State of Haryana, the 
Central Agency did not pursue the matter. When it was discovered that the 
Central Agency had not taken the steps in filing the appeal, the petition for 
special leave came to be filed on May 30, 1994. Delay is condoned. (788-G] 
·~ 
c 
3. The District Judge, Faridabad would have an enquiry made as to 
• 
when the oil mill came to be constructed. The appellants would make ex-
gratia compensation for the value of the building as determined by the Dis-
trict Judge, if he comes to the conclusion that the mill was constructed after 
the writ petition had been allowed. (789-F-G] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10498 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.85 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana in Civil W.P. No. 5588/84. 
E 
Altaf Ahmed, ASG., U.R. Lalit, B. Dutta, K.C. Bajaj for Ms. Indu 
Malhotra, K.B. Rohtagi, Baldev Atreya, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, Ajay Kumar 
Agrawal, B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh, G.C. Tyagi, Sunil Kumar Jain, Jatinder K. 
Bhatia for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides we think that it 
is a case for our interference. Though there is an in ordinate delay of 3240 
days, merely 9 years, from February 26, 1985 to May 30, 1994, the date of 
G which S.L.P. was filed, there is proper explanation given by the appellants 
in this case for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. It was not in 
dispute that the matter was sent to the Central Agency anrl since the matter 
is of the State of Haryana, the Central Agency did not pursue the matter. 
When it was discovered that the Central Agency had not taken the steps 
in filing the appeal, the S.L.P. came to be filed on May 30, 1994. The 
H explanation offered is just and rational and can be acceptable. It is accord-
.... 
' 
MKT. COMMITTEE. HO DAL v. KRISHAN MURARI 
789 
ingly accepted. Delay is accordingly condoned. 
It is contended by Shri Datta, learned Senior counsel for the respon-
dent that on account of the delay the appellants have constructed oil mill 
expending cons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.