SRI CH.NARASIMHA RAO vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ELURU .

1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14248 OF 2015 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8583 of 2013) Sri Ch. Narasimha Rao & Ors. .....Appellants Versus Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru & Ors. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Leave granted. JUDGMENT 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated th 10 October, 2012, in Writ Appeal No.1274 of 2012, this appeal has been preferred by the land owners, whose lands have been acquired. Page 1 2 3. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Reference Applications filed by the appellants under Section 18 of the

Act”), was beyond statutory period. For the purpose of ascertaining the said fact, it would be necessary to record some of the relevant facts pertaining to the acquisition proceedings. 4. Notification under Section 4 of the Act for the purpose of acquiring the land for establishment of Auto Nagar at Eluru th had been issued on 27 August, 1993. In pursuance of the said notification, notification under Section 6 of the Act had th been published on 8 October, 1993. Looking at the facts of JUDGMENT the case, the Authorities had invoked urgency clause and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been dispensed with. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforestated acquisition proceedings, the land owners i.e. the appellants had challenged the validity of notification under Section 6 of the Page 2 3 Act and had also challenged invocation of urgency clause, whereby enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been

High Court of Andhra Pradesh and declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been quashed. It was held by the High Court that enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act had been mechanically dispensed with and it was also directed that such an enquiry should be held. The High Court had also given time limit for holding the enquiry. 6. In pursuance of the aforestated direction of the High Court, once again, declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act th had been made on 7 August, 1996 and subsequently Award JUDGMENT th No.2 of 1998 had been made on 7 January, 1998. 7. Once again, Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998 challenging the validity of notification under Section 6 had been filed in November, 1998 on the ground that the said notification was not issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act. Page 3 4 th Ultimately, the said petition had been dismissed on 27 August, 1999, but being aggrieved by the order of dismissal,

before the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court. The rd said appeal had been allowed by the High Court on 23 July, 2001 and thereby the acquisition proceedings had come to an end. The review application filed against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench had also been rejected by the High Court. 8. In the aforestated circumstances, a Special Leave Petition challenging the abovestated judgment had been filed by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited JUDGMENT (APIIC), for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired for establishment of Auto Nagar. Leave was granted in the said Special Leave Petition, which was recorded as Civil Appeal Nos.304-305 of 2005. An interim order was also passed in the said appeals for maintaining status-quo with regard to Page 4 5 th possession as it existed on 10 January, 2005. During the pendency of the aforestated appeals before this Court, the

31(2) of the Act before the District Court. The said proceedings had been rejected by the District Judge on the ground that the acquisition proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had given a direction for maintaining status-quo. 9. Ultimately, this Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos.304-305 th of 2005 on 15 September, 2011, whereby the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.1337 of 1999 had been set aside. Thus, JUDGMENT ultimately, the acquisition proceedings were upheld by this Court. 10. As the acquisition proceedings had been upheld, the appellants, being aggrieved by the amount of compensation, had filed Reference Applications under Section 18(1) of the Act Page 5 6 th on 17 October, 2011. The said reference applications had been rejected on the ground of delay by the Land Acquisition

th lands in question had been made on 18 January, 1998. 11. The aforestated proceedings, whereby the reference applications had been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer, had been challenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh th on 4 August, 2012 by filing Writ Petition No.24806 of 2012. The said writ petition had been rejected by the learned Single th Judge of the High Court on 13 August, 2012 on the ground that the reference applications under Section 18(1) of the Act had not been filed within the time prescribed under the said JUDGMENT section. The judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge th on 13 August, 2012 had been challenged by the present appellants/land owners by filing Writ Appeal No.1274 of 2012, th which was also dismissed on the same ground on 10 October, 2012. Page 6 7 th 12. Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment dated 10 October, 2012, this appeal has been filed by the land owners.

submitted that the applications for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act ought not to have been rejected on the ground of delay. The learned counsel fairly admitted that the applications under Section 18 of the Act were not filed within the time prescribed. According to him, the said applications could not be said to have been filed beyond the period of limitation for the reason that the proceedings regarding acquisition had not been finalized and were pending before different courts, namely before the High Court and before the JUDGMENT Apex Court and stay was operating against the acquiring body. 14. The learned counsel submitted that the acquisition had been set aside by the High Court and only by an order dated th 15 September, 2011 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.304-305 of 2005, the acquisition had been confirmed. Page 7 8 The learned counsel further submitted that till the aforestated judgment was delivered by this Court confirming the

application under Section 18(1) because till that time there was no land acquisition at all. By virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the acquisition proceedings had been held to be null and void and therefore, the question of filing any application under Section 18(1) of the Act did not arise. th 15. Though the Award had been made earlier on 7 January, 1998, the acquisition proceedings had been thereafter set aside. The claimants, who are the land owners, did not collect JUDGMENT the amount of compensation as their lands had not been acquired and therefore, there was no reason for them to be aggrieved by quantification of the amount of compensation. He further added that only upon getting intimation of the th order passed by this Court dated 15 September, 2011, Page 8 9 whereby land acquisition proceedings have been confirmed and whereby the lands stood acquired, the question with

Court arose and only at that time the appellants-the land owners, could have thought about the quantum of compensation awarded to them in respect of their lands acquired. th 16. In the aforestated circumstances only on 15 September, 2011, by virtue of the judgment delivered in Civil Appeal Nos. 304-305 of 2005, this Court finally declared that the lands of the appellants stood acquired and therefore, the appellants th filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Act on 17 JUDGMENT October, 2011. He, therefore, submitted that the applications under Section 18(1) of the Act were not beyond the period prescribed under the Act. 17. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Authorities could not deny the aforestated factual Page 9 10 aspect with regard to the proceedings which had taken place th and the final judgment delivered by this Court on 15 September, 2011. 18. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in our opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 19. It is an admitted fact that the acquisition proceedings had been finally confirmed by the judgment delivered by this th Court on 15 September, 2011. Till the said judgment was delivered by this Court, there was no acquisition of the land and therefore, there was no need for the appellants to file any JUDGMENT application under Section 18(1) of the Act. Upon knowing the fact that the lands had been acquired by virtue of the th judgment dated 15 September, 2011 delivered by this Court, the appellants filed the applications under Section 18(1) of Act th on 17 October, 2011. In the aforestated circumstances, in our opinion, the applications filed under Section 18(1) of the Page 10 11 Act should not have been rejected as they were filed immediately after pronouncement of the judgment by this Court. 20. For the aforestated reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court and we direct that without going into the issue of delay or limitation, the applications filed by the appellants under Section 18(1) of the Act shall be entertained in accordance with law. 21. The appeal stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGMENT ………..……………………J. (ANIL R. DAVE) ………..…………………….J. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) NEW DELHI DECEMBER 09, 2015. Page 11