NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES versus JASWANT SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 29-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES 
v. 
JASWANT SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.4(1),. 6(1) and 16-Claim of land owner for restoration of land-
C Ground that land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired-
Land acquired for a company for establishing a factory-Award made and 
possession of land taken-Land owner received compensation-Enhancement 
of compensc;ition sought before reference count and fi1rther before High 
Court-Later, after 17 years of the award and possession of land having been 
D taken, land owner filing writ petition before High Court for quashing the 
Notification-High Court allowing the writ petition-Held, High Court was 
not at all justified in ignoring the delay and /aches and granting relief to 
landowners-They accepted the compensation amount as per the award and 
sought for enhancement of the compensation amount without challenging the 
notification is£ued under Sections 4 and 6- Having sought for enhancement 
E of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the 
appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement 
of compensation-There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate 
delay in filing the writ petitions-Merely because full enhanced compensation 
amount was not paid to the respondents, that itself was not a ground to 
F condone the delay and /aches in filing the writ petition-Delay in challenging 
the Notification. 
G 
H 
Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [199814SCC387 
and Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development 
Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [19961 II SCC 501, relied on. 
Restoration of /and-High Court was not right in ordering restoration 
of land to landowners on the ground that the land acquired was not used 
for which it had been acquired-It is well-settled that after passing the 
award and taking possession under Section 16 of the Act, the acquired land 
vests with the Government free from all encumbrances. Even if the land is not 
534 
NORTHERN INDIAN GLASS INDUSTRIES v. JASWANT SINGH 535 
used for the purpose for which it is acquired, the land owner does not get A 
any right to ask for revesting the land in him and to ask for restitution of 
the possession-If the Ian(..' was not used for the purpose for which it was 
acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did 
not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the /and-
State Government in this regard has. already initiated proceedings for 
resumption of the /and-There arises no question of any unjust enrichment 
to the appellant company. 
Gu/am Mustafa and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., [1976) 
1 SCC 80& and ~ Padma and Ors. v. Dy. Secretary to the Government ofT.N. 
B 
and Ors., [1997) 2 SCC 627, relied on. 
C 
Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharastra and 
Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 405, referred to. 
S.4(1)-Acquisition of land for a private company-Procedure to be 
followed-Held, it was too late for the land owners to challenge acquisition D 
proceedings on the ground that a different procedure had to be followed for 
acquisition of land by State Government for the purpose of a private company. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7023of1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.1992 of the Punjab and Haryana E 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 14735of1991. 
WITH 
C.A.Nos. 7025-3-0 and 7024 of 1993. 
Sanjiv Sen, Vivek Shanna and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, for the Appellant. F 
Ravindra Bana, Anurag Bana, Neeraj Kumar Jain and J.P. Dhanda, for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
The appellant-company approached the State of Haryana for acquisition 
of land for establishing a sheet glass factory. The State Government, on being 
satisfied, took a decision to initiate proceedings in respect of the land in 
question. Preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act 
G 
was issued on 2. 7.1973. Thereafter declaration was made under Section 6 on H 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 4.9.1973 The Collector passed the award on 20.6.1974 in respect of the said 
land, awarding compensation to the land owners i.e. respondent Nos. 1-5 
herein, a sum of Rs. 3,93,688.12. The amount of compensation was also paid 
to the respondents on 16.10.1974 and the possession of the land was also 
taken on the same date.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.