Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MIRZA MAJID HUSSAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF M.P. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2243 1995 SCC (2) 422
JT 1995 (2) 93 1995 SCALE (1)409
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the High Court of Madhva Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Misc.Petition No.484 of 1987, dated 5.1.1988.
2. Notification under section (4) of the Land Acquisition
Act was issued acquiring a large extent of 387.50 acres of
land for submergence of Barna Dam irrigation project in the
State of M.P. The lands of the appellant were also required.
The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 5.9.1969
awarded compensation to the appellant. Thereafter, it would
appear that the appellant had received the compensation
granted by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest but,
according to the appellant, it was under protest. Be it as
it may, on the rejection of the reference, the appellant
filed a revision before the District Judge in 1982. By
order dated 20.6.82, the District Judge rejected the re-
vision. In 1987, the appellant filed the Writ Petition in
the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court on the
ground of inordinate delay. It was held that though the
Collector had rejected the reference on 2.4.75, the revision
was filed in the Tribunal and the District Judge rejected it
on 29.6.83. The petitioner who had slept over the matter for
more than 5 years, filed the Writ Petition. From the date
of the order of the L.A. Collector till date of filling the
writ petition more than 10 years have elapsed. On that
ground the High Court refused to grant the relief.
3. The State Legislature of M.P. amended clause (b) of
sub-s.(2) of sec. 18 and inserted sub-s.(3)thus:
"Any order made by the Collector on the
application under this section shall be
subject to the revision by the High Court as
if the collector were the Court subordinate to
the High Court within the meaning of section
115 C.P.C."
Thus, it could be seen that against the order of rejection
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of reference by the Collector on 2 5.75 only jurisdiction
that could be exercised as per the amendment is by the High
Court under s.115 C.P.C. Thereby, by exercise of the power
by District Judge in this behalf is clearly without
authority of law or jurisdiction. The order of the District
Judge, therefore, is a nullity.
4. Then we have to see whether the appellant was justified
in approaching the High Court after an inordinate delay of
more than 10 years from the date of the order of the
Collector or at any rate from the date of the order passed
by the District Judge. The High Court exercised its juris-
diction under Art.226 but not under s. 115 C.P.C. Even if it
is to be converted as a revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C., the
order of the High Court is not vitiated by any error of
jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of its
jurisdiction. The High Court has rightly refused to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction after an inordinate
delay of more than 5 years from the date of the order of the
District Judge and more than 10 years from the date of the
96
order of the Land Acquisition Collector. Under these
circumstances, we do not think that it is a case warranting
interference by this Court under Article 136.
5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
97