LexRAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ANR. versus STTE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ANR.
....___,~
v.
ST A TE OF M.P. AND ORS.
MARCH 7, 2002
B
[V.N. KHARE, ASHOK BHAN AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 4(1), 6, I I and 28-A-Notification ul
)...
s. 4(1)-Deemed date given to by Supreme Court-Effect of-Acquisition of
c land-Notification uls, 4 issued on 21.8,.1985 and declaration uls. 6 made on
-<
25. 7.1986 challenged before High Court-High Court annulling notification
uls. 4-Appeal before Supreme Court-Supreme Court upheld the acquisition
and set aside judgment of High Court and, keeping in view the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, postponed the date of notification to 1.1.1988
for purposes of determining the compensation*-Writ petition filed before the
D High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings contending that subsequent
to order passed by Supreme Court no declaration under S. 6 or award under
S.11 were made thereby rendering the acquisition proceedings non-est-Writ
petition rejected by High Court holding that its decision on the points would
amount to reviewing the order of Supreme Court-Held, in the earlier judgment
E
the acquisition proceedings were upheld and declaration uls. 6 was kept intact-
Deemed date to the notification u/s. 4 was given by creating a legal fiction for
giving e'nhanced compensation to the claimant in the appeal and it has to be
limited to that only-It cannot be extended beyond it leading to the issuance
of fresh declaration uls. 6 or giving afresh award u/s. 11-It was made clear
that other claimants whose lands may have been acquired under the same
,A;-
F notification would not be entitled to get enhanced compensation uls. 28-A
because of deemed date of notification uls. 4(1) given to appellants-Directions
given with regard to early payment of compensation and deciding reference
petition uls. 18 keeping in view the directions in the earlier judgment.
G
*Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Johri and Ors., (1992) 1 SCC
328, explained and reiterated.
,_
Mancheri Puthusseri Ahmed v. Kuthir Avattam Estate Receiver, (1996]
~
6 sec 185, relied on.
-{
H
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr., [1998) 4
·'
512
-
RAJ KUMARJOHR!v. STATE
513
sec 409, cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos. 5938-
5939 of 2000.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.99 of the Madhya Pradesh
A
High Court in W.P. No. 1931/93 and L.P.A. No. 139 of 1999.
B
WITH
~
C.A. Nos. 5940-594 J of 2000.
'•
S.S. Ray and U.N. Bachawat, Sushi! Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Ms. C
Anjali Doshi, Ms. Ruchi Kohli for B.K. Satija, B.S. Banthia, Ms. Vibha Datta
Makhija, Ms. Bharti Tyagi and S.K. Agnihotri for the appearing parties.
The following Qrder of the Court was delivered :
In September, 1977 for acquisition of more than 600 hectares of land,
a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the D
Act') was issued for the purpose of development of Ujjain, a historical town
in Madhya Pradesh. On September 17, 1980, for different reasons the
notification was quashed. On 21st August, 1985 the impugned notification
was issued afresh under Section 4( l) of the Act Declaration under section 6
'
was issued on 25th of July, 1986. The award was made on 22nd July, 1988. E
The appellants whose land had been acquired filed Writ Petition No.
1707 of 1986 challenging the notification under Section 4 and -the declaration
under Section 6 of the Act to the extent of the acquisition of their land.
Indore Bench of the High Court rendered the judgment annulling the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act by holding that Scheme No. 23 F
framed under M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 did not
operate against certain specified land of the respondent Ujjain Vikas
Pradhikaran (hereinafter referred to as the 'Development Authority').
The Development Authority, being aggrieved, against the judgment of
the High Court filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4554-4556 o,f 1991 which were G
disposed of by an order of this Court on November 14, 1991. The same is
reported in Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran v. Raj Kumar Johri and Ors., [1992]
1 sec 328.
Although a findir g was recorded by this Court that the judgment of the
High Court could not be faulted with, but still it was held that due to the H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002) 2 S.C.R.
A peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the judgment of the High Court
could not be sustained, accordingly,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.