Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3609 of 2006
PETITIONER:
Ganpatibai and Anr.
RESPONDENT:
State of M.P. and Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/2006
BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6509 of 2002)
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment
rendered by a Division Bench of the M.P. High Court,
Jabalpur dismissing appellants Letters Patent Appeal by
order dated 7.11.2001. By the said order, the Division
Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal directed against
order of learned Single Judge dated 23.8.2001 dismissing
writ petition filed by the appellant.
Appellant had challenged notification issued under
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the ’Act’) and the subsequent
award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The writ
application was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay
and also on the ground that the award had already been
passed. The Division Bench concurred with the view
expressed by Learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
High Court should not have considered the writ petition to
be belated. In fact, a suit was filed in the year 1990
immediately after notification was issued under Section 4
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 16.9.1987
and 6.12.1988 respectively. The suit was held to be not
maintainable by learned Civil Judge, Indore on 16.3.2001.
Thereafter, the writ petition was filed.
In response, learned counsel for the respondent-
State of M.P. and its functionaries and the Indore
Development Authority (in short the ’Authority’) supported
the order of learned Single Judge and the appellate
judgment.
A few dates need to be noted for dealing with the rival
contentions. The Authority passed a resolution on
13.3.1981 to frame scheme under Section 50(1) of M.P.
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short the
’Adhiniyam’). The scheme was finally published in terms of
Section 50(7) of the Adhiniyam on 1.5.1984. Certain
additional lands were included in the scheme on 22.6.1984.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
16.9.1987, while the declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was issued on 6.12.1988. The civil suit was filed on
6.9.1990 challenging the scheme, the notification and the
declaration.
Written statement was filed stating that the suit was
not maintainable. Certain landowners whose lands were
acquired challenged the notification under Sections 4 and
declaration under Section 6 of the Act and subsequent
award passed. The High Court quashed the proceedings
and the award; but clarified that the said order would be
applicable only to those who had approached the High
Court and not to others. By order dated 16.3.2001 learned
Single Judge accepted the primary objections raised
regarding maintainability and jurisdiction of Civil Court and
held that the suit was not maintainable. On 20.7.2001 the
writ petition was filed for quashing the notification,
declaration, scheme as also the award which had been
published on 08.06.2001. Learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition holding that there was gross delay in
approaching the Court. As noted above in the Letters
Patent Appeal filed before the High Court, view of learned
Single Judge was maintained.
It is not in dispute that right from the beginning the
State Government and the Authority were taking the stand
that the suit was not maintainable.
In State of Bihar v. Dhirendra Kumar and Ors. (1995
(4) SCC 229), this Court had observed that Civil Suit was
not maintainable and the remedy to question notification
under Sections 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was by filing a writ petition. Even thereafter the appellant,
as noted above, pursued the suit in the Civil Court. The
stand that five years after the filing of the suit, the decision
was rendered does not in any way help the appellant. Even
after the decision of this Court, the appellant continued to
prosecute the suit till 2001, when the decision of this Court
in 1995 had held that suit was not maintainable.
That being so, the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench were justified in holding that the writ
petition was highly belated.
We find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single
Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench to warrant
interference.
The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.