Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOTI LAL & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/11/1997
BENCH:
G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURKUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Kurdukar
O.P. Rana, Sr. Adv. Pradeep Misra, T. Mahipal, Advs. with
him for the appellant
Janak Singh Tomer, Adv. for K.K. Gupta, Adv. for the
Respondents.
J U D G E M E N T
The following judgment of the Court was delivered.
NANAVATI, J.
Leave granted.
Heard leaned counsel for the parties.
The only ground on which the High Court allowed the
writ petition filed by the respondents challenging the
attempt to acquire their lands in plot No. 2611 of village
Kashai was that the said plot was not notified for
acquisition and, therefore, it was not open to the State
Government to deprive the appellants of the said lands or to
interfere with their possession. It is true that while
issuing notification under Section 4 on 2.6.1978 the State
Government committed a mistake in stating the name of the
village in which the said plot is situated. In the said
notification it was described as a plot of village Bankat
whereas really the said plot is situated in village Kashai.
Realizing this mistake the State Government had issued a
corrigendum dated 27.11.1978 which was published in U.P.
gazette on 16.12.1978 and thereby the said mistake was
corrected by stating that what was sought to be acquired
under Section 4 notification was 0.91 acres of land of plot
No. 2611 of village kashai. It was because of the negligence
of the State Government that the said fact was not brought
to the notice of the High Court. However, in view of this
corrigendum it cannot be disputed that 0.91 acres of land
out of the said plot was notified for acquisition by the
State Government. The declaration made under Section 6 was
also required to be read accordingly. It was, therefore, not
proper for the High Court to declare that no part of plot
No. 2611 of village Kashai was notified for acquisition and
to grant an injunction restraining the State from taking
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
over possession of the respondents’ lands. On this limited
ground we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by
the High Court and hold that the State Government had
notified 0.91 acres of land of plot No. 2611 of village
kashai for acquisition offer the benefit of the appellant-
samiti. We, however, make it clear that as the only point
which was considered by the High court , was whether the
lands of he respondent were notified for acquisition or not,
it will be open to the respondent s to take any appropriate
action on any other ground, if it is available to them as
respondents have been dragged to this Court because of the
negligence of the State Government and the appellant-samiti,
the appellant is directed to pay to the contesting
respondents Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost of this appeal even
though they have succeeded in this appeal.