Naya Raipur Landowners’ Delayed Acquisition Challenge Fails After Award, Possession And Development Began, Chhattisgarh HC Says

In brief

The question

1. Whether alleged defects in publication of the acquisition notifications and service of notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invalidated the acquisition proceedings

The court held

The Court held that no ground had been established to interfere with the acquisition proceedings.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners jointly owned land in Village Barauda, Tehsil Arang.

p. 2

Acquisition proceedings for the Naya Raipur development commenced in 2011–12; an award was made on 31 May 2013, and possession was taken on 23 November 2013.

pp. 2–5

The petitioners stated that they first learned of the acquisition in March 2015, when they noticed construction near their land.

pp. 2–5

They challenged the Section 4 notification, the award, and the acquisition proceedings, alleging that statutory notices had not been published or served and that they had been denied a hearing.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether alleged defects in publication of the acquisition notifications and service of notices under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invalidated the acquisition proceedings

pp. 3–5, 7–8

ii.2. Whether the petitioners’ challenge could be entertained under Article 226 after the award had been made, possession taken, and development work commenced

pp. 4, 6–8

03Law Applied

Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 govern publication of acquisition notifications; Sections 9 and 10 concern notices to interested persons, and an irregularity in service may be curable and does not necessarily invalidate an award under Section 11 (May George v. Special Tehsildar, (2010) 13 SCC 98, para 29).

p. 6

The High Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 may be declined where a challenge is brought after inordinate delay and the award has been made and possession taken; the court must consider the finality of the proceedings and any resulting change of position (Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 4 SCC 695, para 16; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464, para 12).

pp. 6–8

A person disputing compensation may seek a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 7

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4Section 6Section 9Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 18

04Reasoning

The Court found that the Section 4 notification had been published in newspapers and the Official Gazette and affixed at the Gram Panchayat, while the Section 6 notification was also published and gazetted.

pp. 5–8

It further found that notices under Sections 9(1) and 9(2) had been issued to the petitioners’ addresses in the revenue records.

pp. 5–8

Accordingly, the record did not support the claim that the notifications were not properly published or that the alleged lack of personal knowledge established illegality.

pp. 5–8

In any event, the petition was brought after the award and taking of possession, and development work had commenced; applying the principles concerning curable notice irregularities and delay after possession, the Court declined to exercise its Article 226 jurisdiction.

pp. 5–8