LexNATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. versus MAHESH DUTTA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2009] 10 S.C.R. 1084 NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. v. MAHESH DUTTA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 6228-6229 of 2002) JULY 16, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: c ss. 17 and 48 - Acquisition of land - Power of State to withdraw from acquisition - Provisions of s. 17 invoked and complied with - Award made - During pendency of appeal before High Court against enhancement of compensation by reference court, State Government issuing notification uls 48 D - Held: Provision of s. 17 having been taken recourse to, land under acquisition vested with immediate effect and absolutely in Government - After possession of land having been taken, State would be denuded of its power to withdraw from acquisitio, 1 u/s 48 - Appellant having stated in appeal before E High Court that possession of land was taken, estopped and precluded from raising a plea contra before Supreme Court - If the land could not be used for purpose it was acquired, it is pennissible for State to use the land for another purpose - Estoppel - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.114 - Land acquisition - User of acquired land. F G H s. 54 - Appeal before High Court -- Held: If a disputed question can be detennined on basis of documents and I or affidavit, High court may not ordinarily refuse to do so - In a given case, it may also examine witnesses. Land admeasuring 65.7125 acres was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the appellant Corporation in order to enable it to set up a Thermal Power Station. Since generation of electricity was 1084 w .,, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION L TD.1085 v. MAHESH DUTIA AND ORS. extremely urgent, provisions of ss. 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act were invoked. The Collector disbursed 80%of the amount of compensation in terms of s. 17(3A) of the Act and issued possession certificate. The award was made. The reference court enhanced the compensation, against which the Corporation filed appeals before the High Court contending that out of the 65.7125 acres of land, possession of entire land was not taken, and the District Magistrate was approached for issuance of a notification · de-notifying /withdrawing the acquisition of land admeasuring 55.498 acres. The State Government issued the Notification dated 11.11.1994 in terms of s.48 of the Act, which was challenged by the land owners in writ . petitions. The High Court allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the NTPC filed the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, indisputably, the provisions of s.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were taken recourse to and, thus, the lands under acquisition vested with immediate effect and absolutely in the government. In the event possession of the land, in respect whereof a Notification had been issued, had been taken over, the State would be denuded of its power to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of s. 48 of the Act. [Para 16, 18 and 29] [1096-F; 1097-G] 1.2. From a perusal of the award, it is evident that not only the provisions of s.17 of the Act were found to have been implemented but even interest had also been granted from the date of acquisition, namely, from the date of taking over of possession. Interest had also been granted in terms of s. 23-A of the Act from the date of notification till the date of actual taking over of possession, which fact the reference court also noted in its judgment No objection was taken before the reference court that possession had not been taken and, thus, A B c D E F G H 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A interest was not payable. Nor any issue was framed in that regard. Even 80% of the compensation had been paid way back in 1984. Besides, in the memo of appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court a statement was made that the possession of the land was B taken by invoking s. 17 of the Act on 16.11.1984. In view of the stand taken by the appellant before the land acquisition authorities as also the reference court and the High Court, it is estopped and precluded from raising a plea contra. Even before this Court, the only ground c taken _was that the land could not be put to use which is a non-issue. [Para 20, 24 and 25) [1099-F-G; 1100-D; 1098- 8; 1100-8-C] D Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. MD Bhagwat AIR 1975 SC 1967 = (1976) 1 sec 70 - relied on. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. V. State of Gujarat & Ors. (199
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.