STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus DEWAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 06-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
DEWAN SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KJRPAL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.4(1), 5-A, 6, 17(4)-Acquisition of land-Award made-Land 
C owners receiving compensation under protest and filing writ petition challeng-
ing exercise of power wider S.17( 4) dispensing with inquiry under S.5-A-High 
Court allowing claim-Held, High Court not justified in inteiferin~Ap
. propriate course would be to sustain the proceedings-£and owners allowed 
to make application for reference to Civil Court for determination of compen-
sation. 
D 
A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was 
published on 22.1.1981 in respect of the land of the respondent-land-
owners. The Collect or made the award on 19.4.1984. On 13.5.1985 the land 
owners filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging<he notifica-
E 
tion under S.4(1) and the award on the ground that exercise of power 
under S.17(4) by the Collector and dispensing with enquiry under S.5-A of 
the Act by him was bad in law as there was no urgency. The High Court 
allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal 
by special leave. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
i: :f - ' 
, ' 
' ,., 
HELD : 1. After the award was made, the Court would not be 
justified to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration 
under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for dispensing with the 
G enquiry under Section 5-A. [786-E] 
2. The notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under S.6 
of the Act were not challenged till May 13, 1985 while the award came to 
be made on April 13, 1984. The respondents in fact received the amount 
under protest but that fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court. 
H Au application for reference under Sectiou 18 was made within the limita-
784 
< 
STATE v. DEWAN SINGH 
785 
tion provided therein, and after the writ petition was allowed the applica-
A 
tion was withdrawn. In these circumstances the appropriate course would 
be to sustain the notification under S.4(1) and the declaration under S.6 
and the award made under S.11. It would be open to the respondents to 
make an application under S.18 to the Collector for reference to Civil 
Court for determining the compensation. [786-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10446 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.85 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2496/85. 
Altaf Ahmed, ASG., U.R. Lalit, B. Datta, K.C. Bajaj for Ms. Indu 
Malhotra, K.B. Rohtagi, Baldev Atreya, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, Ajay Kumar 
Agrawal, B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh, G.C. Tyagi, Sunil Kumar Jain, Jatinder K. 
Bhatia for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
B 
c 
D 
(for short, "the Act") was furnished on January 22, 1981. Notices were given 
under Section 9 of the Act. The Collector after conducting an enqniry E 
made an award on April 19, 1984 and allegedly took possession of the land 
on the even date. The respondents assert that they are in possession. The 
respondents filed the writ petition on May 13, 1985 challenging the notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) of the Act on the ground that dispensing with an 
enquiry under Section 5-A exercising power under Section 17(4) of the Act 
was bad in law as there was no urgency and the award was, on the face of 
the case, bad in law. The High Court by order dated May 27, 1985 allowed 
the writ petition following Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana C.W.P. No. 
2891 of 1984 decided on 9th November, 1984. Thus this appeal by special 
leave. 
It is contended by the appellant that after the award had been made, 
the respondents received compensation and also sought reference under 
section 18. The Land Acquisition Officer was competent to make the 
award within two years under Section 11-A of the Act after the Amend-
ment Act 68 of 1984. The award came to be made within that period. So 
F 
G 
the proceedings under Section 4 and 6 shall not stand lapsed by operation H 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
of Section 11-A of the Act. 
B 
c 
It is contended for the respondents that enquiry under Section 5- A 
is a valuable right and a minimum right by which the owner is entitled to 
show that the land is not fit to be used for public purpose. It would be 
open to show that some oth
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.