MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO (DEAD) TR. LRS. versus GODHAVARI CO-OP MILK P. UNION LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 03-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 1136 
A 
MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO (DEAD) TR. LRS. 
v. 
GODHAVARI CO-OP MILK P. UNION LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7083 of 2008) 
B 
DECEMBER 3, 2008 
[AL TAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
' 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4(1) - Land acquisition 
proceedings - Memorandum of settlement between parties 
c ~ Condition therein that the Acquisition Authorities to deposit 
the amount awarded within the stipulated time period and in 
default, acquisition to be set aside - Payment not made in 
terms of MOU - In appeal, High Court not setting aside the 
acquisition proceedings and extending the time for making 
D such deposit - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Due 
to intervening circumstances, time schedule for depositing the 
amount could not be followed - By order of the court, 
Authorities stood released of the obligation of making deposit 
within time specified in MOU -
Hence, acquisition 
E proceedings cannot be set aside. 
\ 
By Notification dated 8. 7 .1978, the State Government 
acquired land of the appellant for construction purpose. 
The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the 
F~ 
market value of the land at Rs.28,7501- per acre. Appellant 
challenged the acquisition by filing writ petition and the 
-
same was dismissed. However, the appeal was allowed. 
"' 
Respondent then filed SLP and the· same was disposed 
of, in view of the compromise between the parties. The 
parties entered into Memorandum of Settlement that the 
G date of Notification would be treated as 7 .2.1991 for all 
purposes; and that the compensation would be 
determined by the Subordinate Judge which was to be 
paid to the claimants within 8 weeks and in default the 
acquisition would be set aside. Thereafter, the Reference 
H 
1136 
MOOTHA VENKATESWARA RAO v. GODHAVARI CO-OP. 
1137 
MILK P. UNION LTD. & ORS. 
-
Court fixed the market value at Rs.800/- per square yard. 
A 
"' 
Aggrieved, respondents filed appeal contending that the 
market value was wrongly fixed. High Court held t"at 
even though the payment was not made in terms of the 
MOU, since the main appeal was heard, the entire 
acquisition could not be set aside. High Court direct~d B 
the respondents to pay the compensation amount and 
extended the time for depositing the same. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
The question which arose for consideration in this c 
appeal was whether having regard to the conditions 
imposed in the Memorandum of Settlement, the 
~ 
acquisition proceedings would stand set aside in view of 
the default committed by the State and its authorities in 
depositing the amount awarded within the time stipulated 
D 
in the Settlement. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Order passed by the Second Senior 
Civil Judge was to be the basis of the compensation to 
E 
' 
be awarded to the appellants. However, the said order 
, 
also came to be challenged in the High Court and a stay 
was also granted to the execution thereof, which lasted 
till the appeal was finally dismissed. It is only after the 
dismissal of the appeal and the vacation of the stay order 
F 
that the respondents began to take steps for deposit of 
-.. 
the compensation amount as per the Memorandum of · 
Settlement. Therefore, it is obvious that because of 
intervening circumstances, the time schedule conte-
mplated in the Memorandum of Settlement for deposit of 
G 
the compensation amount by the respondent stood 
disturbed. Because of the stay order granted by the High 
,) . 
Court, the respondents were released from the obligation 
of making such deposit within eight weeks from the date 
on which the compensation was determined by the 
H 
" 
1138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 16 S.C.R. 
A Subordinate Judge. Once the respondents stood 
released of the obligation of making the deposit within the 
time specified in the Memorandum of Settlement by the 
orders of Court, it will no longer be available to· the 
appellant to claim that because of the default In making 
B the deposit, the acquisition should stand set aside in 
terms of the Memorandum of Settlement. Therefore, the 
acquisition proceeding does not stand set aside on 
account of the default on the part of the respondents in 
making the deposit within 8 weeks from the. determination 
c of the value of the acquired land by the Subordinate 
Judge. Consequentially it cannot be said that the High 
Court had acted without jurisdiction in extending the time 
for making the deposit. [Para 13] [1144-

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