MAY GEORGE versus SPECIAL TAHSILDAR & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 25-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010) 7 S.C.R. 204 
MAY GEORGE 
v. 
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 2006) 
MAY 25, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
ss. 4, 6, 11 and 18 -
Acquisition for planned 
development of industrial town - Award made - Possession 
taken - Thereafter, one of the /and-owners filing writ petition 
challenging the award on the ground that notice u/s. 9(3) not 
served - Single Judge of High Court dismissing the petition 
0 - Division Bench of High Court dismissing writ appeal, but 
giving liberty to the claimant to move application u!s. 18 - On 
appeal, held: Once award made and possession taken, land 
vested in the State and cannot be diversted even if some 
irregularity found in the acquisition proceedings - On facts, it 
cannot be presumed that claimant had no knowledge of 
E acquisition - Challenge to the award is belated. 
s. 9 - Notice under - Whether mandatory - Held: The 
provision not mandatory - In view of the scheme of the Act, 
failure of notice u/s. 9(3) would not adversely affect the 
F. 
subsequent proceedings including the Award and title of the 
Government in the acquired land. 
Interpretation of Statute - Contextual interpretation -
Held: In order to decide whether a provision is directory or 
mandatory, the Court, in addition to the language of the 
G provision, should examine the context in which it is used and 
the purpose it seeks to achieve, and the legislative intent -
In order to declare a provision mandatory the test is whether 
non-compliance thereof could render the entire proceedings 
invalid or not . 
H 
204 
MAY GEORGE v. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR & ORS. 
205 
Appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award 
A 
made u/s. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. She claimed 
that she was never aware of the acquisition proceedings 
and she was not served with notice u/s. 9(3) of the Act; 
and that she came to know about the acquisition of her 
land when she was served with a notice that she was in 
B 
illegal possession of the land. Single Judge of the High 
Court dismissed the petition. In writ appeal, Division 
Bench of High Court confirmed the judgment of Single 
Judge. However, Division Bench gave liberty to the 
appellant to move an application for making reference u/ c 
s. 18 of the Act. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended inter-alia 
that provisions of s. 9 being mandatory in nature, non-
compliance thereof would vitiate the Award and all other 
consequential proceedings. 
D 
Respondent contended that notice u/s. 9(3) was 
served on the appellant by affixing the same on the land 
of the appellant as she was not available; and that 
provisions of s. 9(3) are not mandatory; that reference u/ 
E 
s. 18 was time barred and High Court was not competent 
to enhance the period of limitation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Huge area of land had been acquired for 
planned development of industrial town, the land of the 
appellant cannot be exempted on any ground 
whatsoever. More so, appellant's land was of negligible 
area in comparison of the total land acquired and 
therefore, at the behest of only one person, the 
acquisition proceedings cannot be disturbed. [Para 10] 
G 
[213-A-B] 
1.2. It is not the case of the appellant that Notification 
u/s. 4 and Declaration u/s. 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
were not published or given publicity as mandatorily 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C R 
A required under the law. Once, Award was made and 
possession had been taken, land stood vested in the 
State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested 
even if some irregularity is found in the Award. [Para 10] 
[212-G-H; 213-A-B] 
B 
1.3. Acquisition proceedings/Award have been 
challenged at a belated stage after a decade of taking 
possession of the land in dispute. In the facts and 
circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to 
presume that appellant had no knowledge of the 
C acquisition proceedings. The writ court rejected the plea 
taken by the appellant, after being fully satisfied that the 
notice u/s. 9(3) was affixed on the part of the land in 
dispute as the appellant was not available; appellant was 
not the resident of the area. Though appellant was aware 
D of the proceedings, conveniently chose to remain silent 
and made use of the notice, asking her removal from the 
unauthorised occupation as the basis of challenging the 
Award and land acquisition proceedings after inordin

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