THE GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION AND ANR. ETC. versus DR. MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 08-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION 
AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
DR. MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.4(1), SA, 6, 17(1), 17(4}-Acquisition of land-Govemment propos-
ing to const1uct offices and residential complex on the land-Exercise of 
power under s.17(4) read with s.17(1)-0ne of land owners challenging the 
acquisition in respect of a very small portion of land-Others either accepting 
a word or receiving compensation under protest-High Court quashing the 
notification 14 years after the possession was taken by Govemment-Held, 
High Court not justified in inte1fe1ing with acquisition. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisitioo Act, 1894 was 
published acquiring 3.589 acres of land situated in Cuttack, for Telecom-
munication Department. In exercise of the power under s.17(4) read with 
s.17(1) of the Act, compliance of provisions of s.SA was dispensed with. E 
The wife of the respondent made a representation requesting to delete 24 
decimals of land. The said representation remained undecided and the . 
declaration under s.6 was published. The Land Acquisition Officer ~ade 
award on 2.11.1976. Since the wife of respondent No. 1 died in the 
meanwhile, he filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the 
notification under s.4(1) and the declaration under s.6 of the Act. The High 
Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Government to consider 
F 
the representation of the respondent. On 3.6.1987 the representation was 
rejected. Respondent No.1 filed another writ petition challenging the 
notifications. The High Court quashed the notification under s.4(1) on the 
ground that exercise of power under s.17(4) was invalid. Aggrieved, the G 
Government filed the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering 
with the acquisition and quashing the notification under s.4(1) and the H 
1 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
declaration under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since possession 
of the land had been taken on 12.4.1976, the land had vested in the 
Government free from all encumbrances, many land owners had accepted 
the award, and some had received the compensation under protest. 
Moreover, out of the extent of 3.589 acres of land, the claim of the 
B 
c 
respondent is with regard to only 24 decimals of land. (4-G; C; 3-G] 
Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 531, 
relied on. 
1.2. ·The plan would indicate that the land acquired comprises the 
establishment of Officers' building and 2000 electronic exchange. Under 
these circumstances, it would be highly inconvenient to exclude the land of 
the respondent from acquisition. The purpose of enquiry under Section SA 
is only to show that any other convenient and suitable land would be 
available other than the land sought to be acquired, or there is no public 
purpose. This issue would become academic, once 
the construction 
D 
started and was in progress. (4-D-E] 
Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope, (1995] 5 SCC 206, inap-
plicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8752 of 
E 
1995 Etc. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.90 of the Orissa High 
Court in O.J.C. No. 435 of 1988. 
Ms. K. Aruareswari, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, C.V. Subba 
Rao, R.K. Mehta, B.A. Mohanty, Ms. Aruna Mathur and A Mariar-
putham, for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
. 
A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
G (for short, 'the Act') was published in January, 1973 acquiring Ac.3.589 of 
land situated in Cuttack for Telecommunication Department for residential 
,quarters of the staff, Telephone exchange, Post office etc. In exercise of 
the power under Section 17(4) read with 17(1) enquiry under Section 5A 
was dispensed with. Before the declaration under Section 6 could be 
H published a representation was made by the wife of the respondent No. 1 
GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION v. DR. M.M. PRADHAN 
3 
i.e. Dr. Sarojini Pradhan requesting to delete 24 decimals of land for A 
construction of Nursing Home etc. In the meanwhile, Cuttack Develop-
ment Authority declared the area to be commercial zone. In consequence, 
the appellant made an aplication requesting to permit construction upto 
90 ft. and rest of the land may be permitted t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.