TEJ KAUR AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 07-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TEJ KAUR AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MARCH 7, 2003 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act 1894: 
Section 5A-lnquiry under-Land acquisition-Challenged on the ground 
of failure of hold inquiry-Delay in challenging the proceeding-Held: Facts C 
of the case showing holding of the inquiry-Land owners allowed the 
proceedings to go on till passing of award-It indicates there was no genuine 
grievance against the inquiry-Hence acquisition upheld. 
Land acquisition-For the purposes of industrial set up-Challenged on 
the ground that land liable to be exempted as it was agricultural land-Delay D 
in raising the objection-Surrounding lands acquired and sought to be used 
for industrial purpose-Held, in such circumstances land not liable to be 
excluded from acquisition. 
The lands of the appellant-landowners were acquired under Land 
· Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of starting industries. After the E 
award was passed appellants filed writ petitions before· High Court 
challenging the acquisition, which were dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court appellants in one appeal contended that 
though Section SA inquiry was mandatory, no such inquiry was conducted, F 
and so the subsequent proceedings were illegal. In another appeal it was 
contended that lands owned by them were liable to be exempted as the 
acquired lands were agricultural lands. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. It is true that Section SA inquiry is an important stage in 
the acquisition proceedings and a person who is aware of Section 4(1) 
Notification can raise objection to the effect that his property is not 
required for acquisition and he is also at liberty to raise the contention 
that the property is not required for any public purpose. It is also true, 
G 
707 
H 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A that the objector must also be given a reasonable opportunity of being 
heard and any violation of the procedure prescribed under Section SA 
would seriously prejudice the rights of the owner of the property whose 
land is sought to be acquired. In the instant case, however, evidence on 
record show that the objection filed by the appellants was considered by 
the Collector. In spite of the Section 6 declaration having been made on 
B 18.3.1992, the appellants allowed the acquisition proceedings to go on 
until the award was passed. This fact clearly indicates that the appellants 
did not have a genuine grievance against Section SA inquiry held by the 
Collector. [710-B, C; E, F] 
C 
Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of the 
City of Ahmedabad and Anr., [1976] 3 SCC 719; Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. 
Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors., (197S) 4 SCC 298 and Shyam Nandan 
Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1993] 4 SCC 2SS, referred to. 
2. There is no justifiable ground to exclude the appellants' lands 
D from acquisition. The appellants did not raise any objection within a 
reasonable time after Section 6 declaration was made. The possession of 
the land itself was given to the third parties for the purpose of starting 
the industry. Moreover, the land of the appellants is surrounded completely 
by other plots which are acquired and sought to be used for industrial 
purposes. (711-A; 710-G, H] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 66 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.1996 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4759 of 1994. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 67 of 1998. 
Manoj Swarup, U. Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Aggarwal for the Appellants. 
B.B. Sawhney, R.K. Rathore, Additional Advocate General for State of 
Punjab, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. K. Seth, Bimal Roy lad, R.S. Suri for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
,Jll 
.~ 
\ 
TEJ KAUR v. STATE [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, .I.] 
709 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. The appellants in these two appeals are A 
land-owners whose land was acquired for the purpose of starting an "Industrial 
Focal Point" by the State of Punjab. Notification under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 7.5.1991. Appellants in Civil 
Appeal No. 66 of 1998 filed objections on 13.6.1991. Section 6 declaration 
was made on 18.3.1992 and the award was passed on 15.3.1994. The appellants B 
filed writ petitions before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, challenging 
the acquisition proceedings. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed 
the writ petitions and aggrie

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