THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES versus N. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 17-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 529 
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET 
A 
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 
v. 
N. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-5274of2017) 
APRIL 17,2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6(1) - Notifications 
under, for acquisition of lands for expansion of appellants 
marketing yard - Challenged by landowners - Single Judge of High 
Court held that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-
compliance, however, keeping in view the public interest involved, 
instead of setting aside the proceedings it shifted the date of 
notification u/s.4(1) for determination of compensation - Jn appeals 
; by landowners and the appellant, Division Bench concurring with 
the Single Judge declined inte1jerence with the acquisition 
proceedings in view of the larger public importance of the 
acquisition - On appeal, held: Keeping in mind the larger public 
interest involved in the acquisition, order of the High Court calls 
for no interference - The Right to Fair Compensation and 
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 
Act, 2013 - s.24(2). 
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. 
(2005) 13 SCC 477 : (2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421 - relied 
on. 
Case Law Reference 
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421 
relied on 
Para9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-
5274 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the High Court 
of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. A. Nos. 5-8, 33-34, 35-40, 41, 45, 
5247-51, 47, 48, 5214-16, 49 & 5261 of201 I and R. P. No. 302 of2011 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 5275-5278, 5279-5287of2017. 
529 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, V. Lakshmi Narayanna. Sr. Advs., Dr. Nanda 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Ki shore, Nishanth Patil, Abinash Ku111ar Mishra, Shantha Kumar Mahale, 
G. D. Ashwaitha Narayana, Amith J., V. N. Raghupathy, Anup Jain, 
Advs. for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the acquisition of 
42 acres 32 guntas oflands in village Go! i111angala, Saijapur Hobli, Anchal 
Taluk, District Bangalore, for expansion of the Appellant's marketing 
yard. Noticing infirmities in the acquisition proceedings, but declining to 
quash the acquisition adverting to the larger public purpose, the High 
Court shifted the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the date 
of its order i.e. 22.11 .2010, for determination of compensation. Aggrieved 
by the order, both the Appellant and the landowners are in appeal before 
this Court. 
3. The statutory notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was 
published on 20.5.2002 and the Award made on 31.01.2005. On a 
challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the landowners, the Learned 
Single Judge, after perusing the original acquisition records, held that the 
declaration under Section 6( 1) of the Act was made within statutory 
time from the last date of publication under Section 4( 1) of the Act. But 
that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-compliance with regard 
to publication in two daily newspapers under Section 4( I) of the Act and 
improper consideration of the objections under Section.SA of the Act. 
Adverting to the public purpose of the acquisition, the proceedings were, 
however, declined interference and instead, the relief was moulded relying 
upon Competent Authority vs. Baraugore Jute Factory & Ors., (2005) 
13 SCC 4 77, by shifting the date of the Section 4( I) Notification. 
4. Appeals were preferred both by the Landowners and the 
Appellant. The Division Bench summoned the original records afresh. It 
arrived at a finding at variance with the Learned Single Judge for reasons 
discussed in paragraph 40 of the Order that the declaration under Section 
6( I) of the Act was not within statutory time. But, declining interference 
· with the acquisition proceedings, it concurred with the reasoning ascribed 
by the Learned Single Judge of the larger public importance of the 
acquisition. 
THE SPL. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MKT. COMMITTEE FOR 
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES v. N. KRISHNAPPA (NAVIN SINHA, J.] 
5. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for 
the Appellant - Market Committee urged that the conclusion of the 
Learned Single Judge from the original records thatthe declaration under 
Section 6( I) o

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