REV. FATHER BRAIN E FERNANDES ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 452 · Decided: 12-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
REV. FATHER BRAIN E FERNANDES ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 12, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4(1), SA and 6-Acquisition of land--Guntha numbers given 
C instead of swvey numbers-However identity of the land not in dispute and 
the land was also part of the notification under S.4(1)-No illegality in the 
Notification as originally publishe~Enquiry under S.SA held and thereafter 
· S.6 declaration published-No objection taken-Declaration held valid-In-
ordinate delay cau~ed by authorities making the award and offering the 
amount-Hence entitled to additional amount of 12% per annum from S.4( 1) 
D Notification-Directed to be paid. 
Ramchand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 44, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3647 of 
E 1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.95 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 2694 of1986. 
Soli J. Sorabjeee, S.K. Dholakia, M.L. Verma, S. Ganesh, Arivind 
F 
Sharma, P.H. Parekh, S.M. Jadhav, D.M. Nargolkar, Ms. Reema Bhandari, 
M.N. Shroff for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
G 
We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
was published in the State Gazette on July 26, 1965 and the declaration 
was published on May 17, 1969 . .The Award came to be made on Septem-
H ber 22, 1986 within the period provided under Section 11-A incorporated 
452 
\ 
'-
REV. FATHER BRAIN E FERNANDES v. STATE 
453 
by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Therefore, the appellants have ap-
A 
proached the High Court. The High Court dismissed their W.P. No. 
2694/86 by order dated June, 14, 1995. Thus these appeals by special leave. 
Shri Sorabjee, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has con-
tended that in similar cases relating to the same survey No. 294, the High 
Court had quashed the declaration under Section 6 relegating the parties 
for an enquiry under Section 5-A on the ground that the erratum notifica-
tion was published for the first time without giving any opportunity to the 
appellants and was followed by declaration under Section 6. Therefore, the 
action of the authorities in this case also is illegal. We find no force in the 
contention. As noted by the High Court in the order that the only defect 
as noted was that instead of survey numbers, guntha numbers have been 
given in the Erratum relating to specification of survey numbers. In other 
words, the identity of the land was not in dispute and the land was also 
part of the notification under Section 4(1). Therefore, there is no illegality 
B 
c 
in the notification under Section 4(1) as originally published. In fact, the D 
enquiry under Section 5A after giving an opportunity to the appellants was 
held and thereafter declaration under Section 6 was published. No objec-
tion in this behalf was taken. Under those circumstances, we do not find 
any force in the contention of Shri Sorabjee. It is true that the High Court 
had quashed the declaration under Section 6 but nonetheless an oppor-
tunity had been given to all those persons and thereafter Section 6 decla-
ration would follow. The only condition precedent is that the acquisition 
would serve public purpose. So long as the public purpose subsists, the 
enquiry under Sedion 5-A shall be conducted and the competent authority 
would take a decision whether the public purpose still subsists to sustain 
the notification under Section 4(1). Under those circumstances, we do not 
think that there is any force in the contention of Shri Sorabjee. 
E 
F 
It is then contended by Shri Sorabjee that this Court in Ramchand 
& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 44 would have interfered 
and quashed the acquisition under Section 4(1) for a long delay on the part 
of the authorities, but for the intervention of third party rights. In this case, G 
since the appellants are still in possession and no third party rights h:ave 
been created, the notification requires to be quashed. We find no force in 
the contention. It is true that admittedly, there is long inaction on the part 
of the authorities. As noted by this Court, since limitation has not been 
prescribed for the actions to be pursued by the authorities, after the H 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
publiCation of the declaration· under Section 6 inordinate delay is being 
caused 

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