MEHER RUSI DALAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MEHER RUSI DALAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 5~ 2004 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K.SEMA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Section 30-Reference under-Apportionment of share-By tenants-
,.,. 
C Property taken over by Central Government for war purposes-Notice to quit 
given to Defence Government-Owner filed writ petition for directions that the 
property be acquired or possession be handed back-Central Government 
agreed to acquire said property-Certain amount awarded as compensation--
Central Government sought permission to withdraw from acquisition and to 
D set aside the award, which was not granted-Subsequently, Central Government 
filed a writ petition for apportionment of its share-The High Court allowed 
the writ petition and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a 
reference under S. JO-Correctness of- Held· In land acquisition proceedings 
Government cannot and does not acquire its own interest-The interest which 
is acquired is interest of third parties-Hence, High Court erred in directing 
E reference under S. 30. 
Section 18-Reference under-Period of /imitation-Held: Where the 
claimant has notice of the acquisition proceedings the limitation period is that 
prescribed under S. 18-Where there is no notice of acquis.'tion proceedings, 
F the starting point would be from the date of knowledge of such proceedings 
or accrual of rights, whichever is later. 
The appellants' property was taken over by the respondent for war 
purpose~. The appellants gave a notice to quit to the respondent. 
Subsequently, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court 
G for directions that the property be acquired or the possession be banded 
back. The respondent agreed to acquire the said property. 
The respondent invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed. In that award a 
1i;i.._ 
certain amount was fixed as compensation. The appellants applied that 
II 
956 
M.R. DALAL v. U.0.1. 
957 
the amount of compensation be paid to them. 
A 
Subsequently, the respondent filed an application before the Special 
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) seeking permission to withdraw from 
the acquisition proceedings and to set aside the award. The permission 
was not granted. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before 
the SLAO for apportionment of its share under Section 30 of the Act. This B 
application was rejected as the respondent made no such claim in the land 
acquisition proceedings. But the High Court allowed the writ petition filed 
by the respondent and directed the SLAO to make a reference under 
Section 30 of the Act. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has erred in setting as side the order of 
c 
the Special Land Acquisition Officer declining a reference. It is settled law 
that in land acquisition proceedings the Government cannot and does not 
acquir~ its own interest. The interest, which is acquired in land acquisition D 
proceedings, is interest of third parties. (964-A-B) 
Collector of Bombay v. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri, [19S5) l SCR 1311, 
relied on. 
Inder Parshadv. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Rattan Kumar E 
Tandon v. State of U.P., (1997) 2 SCC 161, held inapplicable. 
Government of Bombay v. Esupali Salebhai, (1909) ILR 34 Dom. 618 
and Deputy Collector v. Aiyayu Pi/lay, (1911) 9 IC 341, cited. 
2. If the respondent had a right as a tenant, it would be entitled to a 
share in the compensation. However such a claim, if any, was in respect 
of a pre-existing right and should have been made before the SLAO. in 
the land acquisition proceedings. From the award it is clear that the 
respondent was represented before the SLAO. It had been given notice. 
F 
No claim of tenancy had been made before the SLAO. (966-C-D) 
G 
3. It was the duty of the SLAO to enquire into and ascertain the 
respondent's interest in the land whether or not it was present. The SLAO 
may have been aware that the respondent was in possession. But merely 
because a party is in possession, does not lead to an inference that the party H 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A is in possession under a right. The possession had been taken during the 
war for defence purposes and that the notice to quit had been given. 
Therefore, if any claim to tenancy was to be made, it had to be specifically 
raised and then only it could have been dete.rmined. If a party is present 
and makes no claim, the 

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