Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
RELIANCE PETROLEUM LIMITED
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ZAVER CHAND POPATLAL SUMARIAAND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1996
BENCH:
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATASWAMI K. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 579 JT 1996 (5) 114
1996 SCALE (4)340
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
K.Venkataswami,J.
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel. Perused the written submissions.
These appeals - one by the State of Gujarat
[S.L.P.(C)No.27350/95] and the other by the Reliance
Petroleum Limited [S.L.P.(C) NO.27230/95] arise out of the
judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated 5th
September, 1995 in Special Civil Application No. 13525/94.
By the judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed
(a) the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act thereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated
15.2.1993, (b) the declaration issued under section 6 of the
Act dated 18.5.1994 and (c) the award passed on 12.12.94
insofar as they related to the lands of the writ petitioners
and other objectors (totalling 89 in number) belonging to
villages Padana and Meghpur.
At the instance of the appellant in Civil Appeal
arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.27230/95 (hereinafter called the
"appellant company") machinery under Land Acquisition Act
was put into operation under Part VII of the Act for
acquiring approximately an extent of 2,500 acres of lands
situated in the villages of Moti Chavdi, Padana, Meghpur,
Lalpur, Sikka and Gagva. Before the High Court the lands
measuring about 877 acres belonging to 89 individuals
situated in Padana and Meghpur was the subject matter. It
appears in between (namely when the matter was pending
before the High Court and the matter was heard and concluded
in this Court) the appellant Company was able to settle the
matter with 70 individuals, leaving 19 individuals holding
an extent of 241.34 acres for settling the issue. In other
words we are concerned now with the lands situated in Padana
and Meghpur villages belonging to 19 individuals measuring
241.34 acres only.
Before the High Court the writ petitioners (namely
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Respondents 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.
(C)No.27230/95) raised only three contentions. They were
that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 of
the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules. 1969, that there was
non-compliance of provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules and
that there was no hearing as required was afforded and
thereby there was violation of the provisions of Section 5A
of the Act. The learned Judges impressed by the arguments of
the writ petitioners accepted the above three contentions
and consequently quashed the notification under section
4(1). declaration under section 6 and awards passed under
the Land Acquisition Act as mentioned above at the outset.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court these
appeals by special leave have been preferred.
Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant Company submitted that the High Court on the
facts of the case ought not to have entertained the writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
especially when the object of the petitioners before the
High Court was for getting an unrealistic price for their
lands. He also submitted that their conduct in not
challenging the legality and validity of notification under
section 4(1) declaration under section 6 of the Act
immediately after their publications and they having waited
till the award was passed and finding that the award was not
to their satisfaction and filing reference under section 18
of the Act, disentitles them from moving the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Such conduct on the
part of the writ petitioners should have been taken due note
of by the High Court for rejecting the relief. He also
brought to our notice one factual position that out of 89
persons who challenged the land acquisition proceedings,
only 19 are in the field and the rest have accepted the
compensation (of course higher amount than the one awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer) and that shows that the
sole object of the petitioners before the High Court
(respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein) was to get the unrealistic
price. In support of this he also invited our attention to
paragraph 4 of the written submissions filed on behalf of
the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. In the written submissions
filed on behalf of the appellant Company, it is
categorically stated that the Company is prepared to pay the
same compensation as paid to other persons at the rate of
Rs. 43750/- for non irrigated lands and Rs.87500/- for
irrigated lands. It is also pointed out that these amounts
are higher than the one demanded by the writ petitioners in
their letter dated 25.10.1994. In the concluding part of the
written submissions an alternative offer also is made
stating that if necessary the Company is prepared to give
alternative lands out of the lands acquired to the 19
individuals who are now disputing the land acquisition
proceedings, No doubt the learned counsel also contended
that the authorities concerned have complied with the
formalities required under Rules 3 and 4 of the Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules and also the formalities
required under section 5A of the Act. He also cited number
of judgments of this Court to support his contentions.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the land owners (respondents Nos. 1 to 3) c the 19
individuals while replying submitted that the Company having
not responded to the offer made by the land owners by letter
dated 25.10.1994 cannot place any reliance at this stage.
The land owners/respondents on the basis of the judgment of
the High Court are entitled to the present market value
which is about Rs.7 lakhs per acre and if this amount is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
paid now they will accept the same and give up their further
claims. According to the learned counsel as per decision of
this Court, compliance of requirement of Rules 3 and 4 of
the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules as well as personal
hearing under section 5A are mandatory and non-compliance of
the same as factually found by the High Court cannot be
cured and therefore, the High Court was justified in
entertaining the case under Article 226 and quashing the
proceedings. He also cited number of authorities in support
of his submission.
We have carefully gone through the relevant records and
considered the submissions both oral and written and we are
of the view that on the facts which cannot be disputed, the
High Court ought not have exercised its discretionary
jurisdiction and quashed the notification, declaration and
award under the Land Acquisition Act.
The facts which cannot be disputed are the following.
The notification under section 4 dated 15.2.1993, which is
the first step to initiate proceedings under the Land
Acquisition Act, was issued on 11.3.1993. After the inquiry
under section SA, (we proceed on the assumption that there
was no strict compliance of the requirements) declaration
under section 6 was published on 18.5.1994. Thereafter
individual notices under section 9 were issued on 12.8.1994.
In response to notices under section 9 claims were filed by
the land owners including respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on
5.9.1994. Apart from that on 7.9.1994 a letter was addressed
to the Land Acquisition Officer on behalf of the 89
individuals which included respondents 1 to 3 informing that
the claims were filed on behalf of the 89. When the matter
was pending before the Land Acquisition Officer and before
an award was passed respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for themselves
and on behalf of 89 persons addressed a letter on 25.10.1994
stating that they have no objection to the acquisition of
land but they wanted only compensation as demanded therein.
In fact they have given figures which ranged between 37500/-
to 87000- per acre. However, the appellant company did not
take advantage of that offer by responding to the same.
Subsequently, on 12.12.1994 the Land Acquisition officer has
passed the award and on the same date notices under section
12(2) were also issued to the individuals. It is claimed
major portion of the land was taken possession of on
19.12.1994. It is, therefore, only on 20.12.1994 Special
Civil Application No. 13525/94 was filed by respondents Nos.
1 to 3 on behalf of 89 persons challenging the Land
Acquisition proceedings.
From the above facts which cannot be disputed as they
were taken from records, it would be clear that respondents
Nos. 1 to 3 (writ petitioners before the High Court) took
their chance in the Award Proceedings and finding that the
compensation as claimed by them was not given have moved the
High Court. If really their intention was to challenge the
acquisition as such they could have done immediately at
least after the publication of declaration under section 6
or immediately after they received notices under section 9
of the Land Acquisition Act. This shows that the only object
of the writ petitioners was to get the maximum price for the
land acquired. No doubt they are entitled to the
compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. For
that there is a separate procedure under the Act itself. As
a matter of fact out of 19 individuals who are before us,
represented by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, it is common ground
17 have already sought reference under section 18 of the Act
claiming more compensation. Further, it is stated in the
written submission filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
3 as under :
"It may be pointed out that some of
the land owners, as was stated by
the counsel for the company, have
entered into settlement with the
company and have accepted the
compensation. Evidently they will
not be entitled to the benefit of
the High Court judgment. However,
it has been stated in a note given
to the Court by the company that 19
persons owning 241.34 acres of the
land sought to be acquired have not
entered into any settlement with
the company. The result would be
that the Government would have no
authority to take possession of
these lands without fresh
acquisition proceedings. It was
stated on behalf of these
respondents that the present market
value of the land was about 7 lakhs
per acre and therefore, the
compensation for the said 241.34
acres would come to about Rs.17
crores. It was further stated on
behalf of the respondents that if
the company is willing to agree
that these persons would be
entitled to receive compensation
according to the market value
prevalent on the date of Supreme
Court’s judgment in this SLP, the
respondents would be willing to
accept the same."
Taking note of all these facts we have come to the
conclusion that the High Court was not justified in
entertaining the writ petition and also in exercising the
discretionary jurisdiction to quash the 4(1) notifications
section 6 declaration and award made under the Land
Acquisition Act.
In the view we take on the facts of the case, we do not
think it necessary to discuss the question of law and to
quote the cases cited by counsel on both sides.
Notwithstanding the above, we feel that ends of justice
would be met if we direct the appellant company to pay the
enhanced compensation at the rate/rates paid to others who
have accepted the same and withdrew from prosecuting the
case in this Court, with interest @ 12% from 25.10.1994. If
an affidavit is filed on behalf of the 19 persons accepting
the above compensation in full quit within 8 weeks from this
date, the same should be paid by the Company within 4 weeks
from the date of filing of such affidavit. If the affidavit
accepting the above compensation is not filed as above, then
it will be taken that the 19 individuals are not accepting
the compensation suggested, but desire to agitate the same
in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, subject to the direction given
above, the appeals are allowed and the judgment of the High
Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to
costs.