UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus GOPALDAS BHAGWAN DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 04-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
GOPALDAS BHAGWAN DAS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3636 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 04, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 6 – In 1943, Govt. of
India requisitioned 4 acres and 34 gunthas of land bearing Survey
No. 120/2 (Part) of Village Malad, Mumbai – In 1949, 2.68 acres
land out of the aforesaid land was de-requisitioned – In 1975,
notification was issued u/s.4(1) acquiring the said extent of 8623
sq.m. – Declaration u/s.6 issued in 1978 – Draft Award passed in
1986 – Challenge made in the present case in the year 2002 – In a
proceeding concerning other lands covered by the same s. 4
notification, Supreme Court in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., allowed appeal by land owner – In view
thereof, present case referred to larger Bench that delay and laches
have to be ignored – Held: On facts, question of delay and laches
need not be answered as s.4 notification that was struck down in
Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case is the very notification in the facts of
this case wherein the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed
– Unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the s.4 notification
not only deals with various other lands in Village Malad but also
deals with a land in a different village altogether viz., Village
Wadhawan, and that Supreme Court’s judgment did not go to the
extent of declaring the acquisition bad so far as village Wadhawan
is concerned – So far as village Malad is concerned where the land
in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case was land that was adjacent to the
present land, the very s.4 notification was struck down and declared
null and void – This being the case, it would not be in the interest of
justice to allow the present appeal in favour of appellant, as this
would amount to a discrimination between two persons who are
otherwise similarly placed – Further, Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case
did not deal with newspaper publication at all – It only dealt with
the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette and public
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 765
765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
notices of the substance of the notification being given in the locality
in which the lands are acquired, both of which were held to be
cumulative and mandatory requirements of s.4 – Given the fact that
this is a Defence project in which possession has been with the
Union since 1942, the same facts would obtain as in Kulsum R.
Nadiadwala’s case in which relief was granted – Therefore, present
case cannot lead to a different conclusion on similar facts – Defence
of India Rules, 1939 – r. 75A – Constitution of India – Arts. 141
and 142.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though this Court has, by its order dated
27.03.2018, referred this case to a larger Bench in view of the
decision in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case that delay and laches
have to be ignored, the Court is of the view that on the facts of
this case, the Court need not answer this question. This is for
the reason that the Section 4 notification that was struck down in
Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case is the very notification in the facts
of this case. In Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case, this Court quashed
the entire acquisition proceedings stating that they be declared
as null and void. Unable to agree with the contention that the
Section 4 notification not only deals with various other lands in
Village Malad but also deals with a land in a different village
altogether viz., Village Wadhawan, and that this Court’s judgment
did not go to the extent of declaring the acquisition bad so far as
village Wadhawan is concerned. So far as village Malad is
concerned, where the land in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case was
land that was adjacent to the present land, the very Section 4
notification has been struck down and declared null and void,
and this being the case, it would not be in the interest of justice
to allow the present appeal in favour of the Union of India, as this
would amount to a discrimination between two persons who are
otherwise similarly placed. [Para 8][772 G-H; 773 A-D]
1.2 Even though newspaper publication of the Section 4
notification came in by amendment for the first time in 1984, the
requirement of public notice where the land is situate in addition
to publication in the Official Gazette, was always there from the
inception. Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case did not deal with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
newspaper publication at all

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