Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of
2009]
RELIANCE POWER LTD. …….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
BABU SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. ….. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8819-8831 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.36616-36628 of 2009]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 832-8833 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.171-172 of 2010]
WITH
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8834 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.1937 of 2010]
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8835 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.29549 of 2010]
WITH
WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8836-8839 OF 2014
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35239-35242 of 2012]
Page 1
2
J U D G M E N T
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.
1. Leave granted. The interlocutory applications are
allowed.
2. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition
proceedings initiated by the State of U.P. under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’]. By the
impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the two
th th
notifications Dated 25 June, 2004 and 20 February, 2007
underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications
th
under Section 4 of the Act dated 11 February, 2004 and
th
29 August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause
JUDGMENT
with liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of
objections under Section 5A of the Act and with further
direction as to refund of compensation already received by the
land owners. The operative part of the order is as follows:-
th
“1. The notification dated 11 February, 2004 under
Section 4 of the Act is partly quashed to the extent it
invokes Section 17(1)/17(4) and mentions the
acquisition as an acquisition for “public purpose”. All
subsequent proceedings consequent to the
th
notification dated 11 February, 2004 including the
th
notification under Section 6 dated 25 June, 2004 are
Page 2
3
quashed.
2. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry
under Section 5A in continuation of the notification
th
dated 11 February, 2004 and proceed with the
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The notice be issued by the Collector inviting
objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper
having wide circulation by not giving less than 30
days period for filing objection.
th
3. The notification under Section 4 dated 29
August, 2006 is partly quashed insofar as it invokes
Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. All subsequent
th
proceedings consequent to the notification dated 29
August, 2006 including the notification under Section
th
6 dated 20 February, 2007 are quashed.
4. The Collector shall proceed with the inquiry
under Section 5A in continuation of the notification
th
dated 29 August, 2006 and proceed with the
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The notice be issued by the Collector inviting
objection under Section 5A of the Act in newspaper
having wide circulation by not giving less than 30
days period for filing objection.
5. As a result of quashing of the notification dated
th th
25 June, 2004 and 20 February, 2007, the
petitioners are liable to refund the compensation
received from the respondents. However, we provide
that it shall be open for those tenure holders, who
have no objection to the acquisition, to indicate so in
their objection to be filed under Section 5A in which
event they may seek exemption from the Collector
for refunding the compensation. The Collector shall
proceed to decide the objection under Section 5A of
the Act of only those tenure holders who have
refunded the compensation received by them.
JUDGMENT
6. The Collector may recover the compensation as
arrears of land revenue from the tenure holders who
before the Collector do not in writing indicate their no
objection with the acquisition.
7. The Collector in the proceedings for acquisition
and hearing of the objection under Section 5A of the
Act shall be entitled to pass such orders and take
such proceedings as may be necessary with regard to
refund/deposit of the compensation.
Page 3
4
8. We further direct the Collector to get the
substance of this order published in all the leading
newspapers, both in English and Hindi, for
information to all concerned.”
3. Though most of the appeals have been preferred by
M/s Reliance Power Ltd. [formerly known as Reliance Energy
Generation Ltd.] [for short ‘the Company’] at whose instance
the land in question was sought to be acquired, against part
quashing of acquisition proceedings, some of the land owners
have also appealed to this Court with the grievance that
having held that the proceedings were initiated on the grounds
of illegality and fraud, the High Court ought to have quashed
the acquisition proceedings in entirety.
4. The appeals were heard and judgment reserved
JUDGMENT
th
on 6 August, 2014. But before pronouncement of the
judgment, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company
seeking to surrender all rights in respect of the land covered by
th th
the above notifications dated 11 February, 2004 and 29
August, 2006, stating that on account of the difficulty in
securing domestic natural gas to run the plant which was
sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to
utilise the land for the purpose for which the same was
Page 4
5
acquired.
5. While we note the submissions made on behalf of the
Company, we find that the impugned judgment was rendered
th
on 4 December, 2009, and no stay has been granted by this
Court. The State has not chosen to challenge the findings
recorded by the High Court. On this ground itself, proceedings
lapse as limitation for issuing notifications under Section 6 of
the Act or for making award in respect of proceedings initiated
th
vide notifications of Section 4 of the Act dated 11 February,
th
2004 and 29 August, 2006 has expired.
6. In these circumstances no further question survives for
JUDGMENT
consideration. We need not go into the question raised on
behalf of the tenure holders that once the proceedings were
vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power, such
proceedings could not be revived in view of law laid down in
Vyalikaval Housebuilding Coop. Society vs. V.
1
Chandrappa & Ors. , Greater Noida Industrial
2
Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors. . The
direction requiring the Collector to proceed with the enquiry
1
(2007) 9 SCC 304
2
(2011) 12 SCC 375
Page 5
6
under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered infructuous.
Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any
amount from the Company and wanted to file objections were
liable to refund the same and those who had no objection could
seek exemption from refund failing which the Collector could
recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears of land
revenue also does not survive. Since notification under Section
6 of the Act could no longer be issued at this stage, the
question of any tenure holder having or not having objection
does not survive for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A
of the Act could serve no purpose when notification under
Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued. Direction of the
High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.
7. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as
JUDGMENT
infructuous without prejudice to any other remedy for the
Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure
holders to claim damages, if any, from the Company in any
other proceedings.
8. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010
In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos…......... of
2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-
Page 6
7
36452 of 2009 etc.), this writ petition is also disposed of in the
same terms.
…………………………….J.
[ T.S. THAKUR ]
……………………………..J.
[ C. NAGAPPAN ]
………………………………..J.
NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
September 16, 2014
JUDGMENT
Page 7
8
ITEM NO.1E-For Judgment COURT NO.14 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36425-
36452/2009
RELIANCE POWER LTD.FORM.R.E.GENERAN.LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABU SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 36616-36628/2009
SLP(C) No. 171-172/2010
W.P.(C) No. 304/2010
SLP(C) No. 1937/2010
SLP(C) No. 29549/2010
SLP(C) No. 35239-35242/2012
Date : 16/09/2014 These petitions were called on for
JUDGMENT today.
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv.
Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.
JUDGMENT
For Respondent(s)
Mr. A.V. Balan, Adv.
Mr. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv.
Dr. Surat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,Adv.
Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv.
Page 8
9
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.
Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of as infructuous in terms
of the signed order.
Writ Petition (C) No.304 of 2010 is also disposed of
in terms of the signed order.
(VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file)
JUDGMENT
Page 9