LexRAM CHAND AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAM CHAND AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. AND B SHRI VED PRAKASH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDTA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 c (J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4, 4(1), 6, 11, 11(1), llA, 16, 23(1)--Delay in making Awards D and Payment of compensation-Award made several years later on the basis of Market value of land at the time of notice under Section 4(1}-Held: Not proper compliance of mandate regarding payment of market value of land. Constitution of India, 1950 : E Articles 32 & 226-Exercise of jurisdiction-Inaction of the authorities- Injury caused to public-Power of Court to grant modified relief and to direct payment of additional compensation. Proceedings had been initiated between the years 1959 and 1965 by issuance of notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for F acquisition of lands owned by the petitioners/appellants. Though declara- tions under section 6 of the Act had been made in the years 1966 and 1969, awards were made only in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983. Writ Petition and a civil appeal were filed before the Court quashing G the land acquisition proceedings. The petitioners/appellants, contended that the respondents had is- sued the declarations in respect of several thousand bighas of lands, but no further steps, for making of the award or payment of the compensation, were taken for more that 14 years from the date of the declarations under H section 6 of the Act, and the awards were only in the years 1980, 1981 and 558 RAM CHAND v. U.0.1. 559 1983. This procedure was adopted only to peg the market value of the lands A between the years 1959 and 1965. The respondents contended that even if it be assumed that there had been an unreasonable delay in completion.-Of..the-land acquisition proceed· ings, that delay had been condoned and validated by Section llA which was introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, and that B in view of the proviso to section llA of the Act, where a declaration under section 6 had been published before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1984, like the instant cases, the awards could be made within a period of two years from the commencement of the Amendment Act, i.e. up to 23rd September, 1986. C Allowing the writ petitions and the appeal, this court HELD: 1. The different sections of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicate that the framers of the Act enjoined, that after publication of notification under sub-section(l) of section 4 of the Act, further proceed- D ings should be taken as early as possible. A special feature of the Act is that it requires award to be made and compensation to be paid before the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition, vests in the Government. This is apparent from section 16, which says that when the Collector has made an award under> section 11, "he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all E encumbrances." Normally, in statutes relating to acquisition of interest of the holder, question of assessment and payment of compensation arise after the vesting of the right, title interest of the holder. But the Act conceives that there may be delay in taking possession, due to some unavoidable reasons and, as such making of the award or payment of the F compensation should not be dependent on taking of the possession of such land and vesting thereof in the Government. (564-B-D] State of Gujarat v. Pastel Raghav Natha, AIR (1969) SC 1297 = (1970) SLR 335; Mansaram v. S.P. Pathak, (1984] 1 SCC 125; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prashad Shanna, (1966] 3 SCR 551,Ambalal Purshottam G v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, (1968] 3 SCR 207; Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P., (1976] 3 SCR 1 = AIR (1976) SC 417; The Tiverton and North Devon Railway Company v. Robert Francis Loosemore, 9 Appeal Cases 480 at 489; Grice v. Duley Corporation, (1958) 1 Chancery Division 329 andBinningham City Corpn. v. West Midland Baptist (Trnst) Association H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A (Incorporated), [1969] 3 All England Reports 172, referred to. Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition, Pl.282, referred to 2. It cannot be said that the pr~viso to section llA of the Act in any manner validates or justified the inaction on the part of the authorities in B delaying and keeping land acquisition proceedings pending for a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.