1993 JTR(SC) 413
1993 AIR(SCW) 2334 ; 1993 2 CurCC(SC) 23 ; 1993 Supp JT 96 ; 1993 3 RRR 130 ; 1993 2 Scale 561 ; 1993 3 SCC 24 ; 1993 1 UJ 773 ; 1993 KHC 1159
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE J.S. VERMA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BHATINDA
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 1686 of 1993{From the Judgment and Order dated May 8, 1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3534 of 1984}
Decided on 15-4-1993
Advocates Appeared:
K.K. Mohan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.6, S.48, S.4
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 6, and Section 48, along with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, form the statutory framework for this case. Section 4 empowers the government to notify land acquisition for a public purpose, Section 6 provides for the declaration of such acquisition after satisfying requirements under Section 5-A, and Section 48 grants the authority to abandon acquisition proceedings. The notification and declaration in this matter were issued for the construction of a public park under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appeal challenges the order deemed to lapse the acquisition after non-possession, invoking the High Court's precedent in Radhey Shyam Gupta, which this Court later disapproved. Article 226 supports judicial review of such administrative actions.
(B) Key legal principles include: locus standi of the appellant as a party aggrieved by the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner; the competence of the Collector to pass orders on pending acquisition proceedings; the effect of delay and non-possession on the deemed lapse of acquisition notifications; and the requirement for the State Government to issue a separate notification to abandon acquisition under Section 48. The court emphasized that pendency of appeals does not automatically halt proceedings and that reliance on prior High Court precedents must be tested against current statutory interpretations.
Facts of the case:
On October 20, 1976, the Government of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire 14 bighas and 13 biswas of land at Bhatinda for a public park. A declaration under Section 6 followed on July 5, 1977. Earlier challenges by respondent 2 were dismissed in 1978, and special leave was refused in 1979. During subsequent pendency before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondents 2 and 3 filed an application to quash the notifications, citing a six-year delay and non-possession, and relying on Radhey Shyam Gupta. The appellant replied, contesting the competence to quash and asserting that the Collector could only make an award. The Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the application, deeming the notifications lapsed, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appellant filed this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellant had locus standi as a party aggrieved by the order dated December 20, 1983. The Court disapproved the Radhey Shyam Gupta precedent and clarified that the Additional Deputy Commissioner erred in treating the notifications as lapsed without a formal abandonment notification from the State Government under Section 48. There was no record of the State Government withdrawing or abandoning acquisition, rendering the High Court's reasoning unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the order dated December 20, 1983? Whether the Collector was competent to pass the impugned order regarding deemed lapse? Whether the State Government had abandoned acquisition under Section 48?
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellant, having been made a party in the acquisition proceedings and affected by the order declaring the notifications lapsed, had sufficient locus standi. The Collector was not empowered to deem the notifications lapsed without a formal abandonment order from the State Government under Section 48, and the earlier disapproved precedent cannot be relied upon. The acquisition must proceed as per law.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, the order dated December 20, 1983 is vacated, and the Collector is directed to continue acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 4, Section 6, and Section 48, along with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, form the statutory framework for this case. Section 4 empowers the government to notify land acquisition for a public purpose, Section 6 provides for the declaration of such acquisition after satisfying requirements under Section 5-A, and Section 48 grants the authority to abandon acquisition proceedings. The notification and declaration in this matter were issued for the construction of a public park under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appeal challenges the order deemed to lapse the acquisition after non-possession, invoking the High Court's precedent in Radhey Shyam Gupta, which this Court later disapproved. Article 226 supports judicial review of such administrative actions.
(B) Key legal principles include: locus standi of the appellant as a party aggrieved by the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner; the competence of the Collector to pass orders on pending acquisition proceedings; the effect of delay and non-possession on the deemed lapse of acquisition notifications; and the requirement for the State Government to issue a separate notification to abandon acquisition under Section 48. The court emphasized that pendency of appeals does not automatically halt proceedings and that reliance on prior High Court precedents must be tested against current statutory interpretations.
Facts of the case:
On October 20, 1976, the Government of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire 14 bighas and 13 biswas of land at Bhatinda for a public park. A declaration under Section 6 followed on July 5, 1977. Earlier challenges by respondent 2 were dismissed in 1978, and special leave was refused in 1979. During subsequent pendency before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, respondents 2 and 3 filed an application to quash the notifications, citing a six-year delay and non-possession, and relying on Radhey Shyam Gupta. The appellant replied, contesting the competence to quash and asserting that the Collector could only make an award. The Additional Deputy Commissioner allowed the application, deeming the notifications lapsed, a decision upheld by the High Court. The appellant filed this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellant had locus standi as a party aggrieved by the order dated December 20, 1983. The Court disapproved the Radhey Shyam Gupta precedent and clarified that the Additional Deputy Commissioner erred in treating the notifications as lapsed without a formal abandonment notification from the State Government under Section 48. There was no record of the State Government withdrawing or abandoning acquisition, rendering the High Court's reasoning unsustainable.
Issues:
Whether the appellant had locus standi to challenge the order dated December 20, 1983? Whether the Collector was competent to pass the impugned order regarding deemed lapse? Whether the State Government had abandoned acquisition under Section 48?
Ratio Decidendi:
The appellant, having been made a party in the acquisition proceedings and affected by the order declaring the notifications lapsed, had sufficient locus standi. The Collector was not empowered to deem the notifications lapsed without a formal abandonment order from the State Government under Section 48, and the earlier disapproved precedent cannot be relied upon. The acquisition must proceed as per law.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, the order dated December 20, 1983 is vacated, and the Collector is directed to continue acquisition proceedings in accordance with the law.
K.K.Mohan
JUDGMENT
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated May 8, 1985 whereby Civil Writ Petition No. 3534 of 1984 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
2. On October 20, 1976, the Government of Punjab issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby it was notified that land measuring 14 bighas and 13 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 2012 situated at Bhatinda was required for the construction of a public park by the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda. After considering the report submitted under Section 5-A of the Act, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on July 5, 1977 in relation to the said land. Civil Writ Petition No. 2315 of 1977 filed by Smt Parwati Devi, respondent 2 (deceased), to challenge the validity of the said notification and declaration was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment and order dated April 26, 1978 and special leave to appeal against the said decision was refused by this Court on May 4, 1979. It appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition in the High Court and the special leave petition in this Court, the acquisition proceedings had been stayed and the same were revived after the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court. While the said proceedings were pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda exercising the powers of Collector, Bhatinda, Smt Parwati Devi and Sudesh Kumar, respondent 3 herein, filed an application whereby it was prayed that the acquisition proceedings be dropped and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed for the reason that a period of six years had elapsed and that possession had not been taken by the Government and the applicants were still in possession of the land in question. In that application, reliance was placed on the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of Haryana{1982 PLJ 349 : AIR 1982 P&H 519 : 1982 Land LR 561 (2)} and other decisions of the High Court. The appellant filed a reply to the said application wherein it was submitted that the notifications were not liable to be quashed and no such power to quash the notification vested in the Collector who has only to make an award. In the said reply, it was also stated that the delay in disposal of the acquisition proceedings was on account of the pendency of the matter in the High Court and this Court and that the market price of the land had already been obtained from the revenue authority. The said application filed by respondents 2 and 3 was allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda by his order dated December 20, 1982 on the view that in a case where the possession of the land is not taken within one year of the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the notification would be deemed to have lapsed. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda. It was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated May 8, 1985 on the view that the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition and further that the State Government was always competent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it had been done for good reasons. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. Smt Parwati Devi, respondent 2, died during the pendency of the matter in this Court. Respondent 3, who is also the legal representative of deceased respondent 2, has not appeared in spite of notice.
4. Having heard Shri K.K. Mohan, the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be upheld and must be set aside. As mentioned earlier, the High Court has refused to interfere on two grounds, namely, (a) the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition; and (b) the collector was fully competent to pass the impugned order inasmuch as the State Government was always competent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it has been done for good reasons.
5. As regards the locus standi of the appellant to file the writ petition, it may be stated that in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, it is specifically mentioned that the land is required for the purposes of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, namely, for the construction of public park etc. In the said notification, it is further stated:
"And whereas in pursuance of the provisions of Section 88 of the said Act, the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda has requested the Government of Punjab, to acquire the said land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on payment by the said Bhatinda Municipality of compensation awarded under that Act and of any other charges incurred in acquiring the land as specified below."
6. Similarly, in the declaration issued under Section 6, it is stated:
"Whereas the Governor of Punjab, after considering the report made under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is satisfied that the land described in the specifications below is needed for a public purpose for providing public park etc. at the expense of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda under Section 55 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 read with Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
7. From the aforesaid recitals in the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, it is evident that the acquisition of the land in question was at the request of the appellant for the purpose of construction of a public park. It may also be mentioned that in the earlier writ petition filed by Smt Parwati Devi which was dismissed by the High Court and against which order special leave to appeal was refused by this Court, the appellant had been impleaded as a respondent. Furthermore, the cause title of the proceedings, as described in the application submitted by respondents 2 and 3 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner for quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, was "Municipal Committee v. Roshan Lal". The appellant had filed a reply opposing the said application submitted by respondents 2 and 3 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda. After considering the said reply, the Additional Deputy Commissioner had passed the impugned order dated December 20, 1983. It would thus appear that the application submitted by respondents 2 and 3 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner gave rise to a lis between respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant on the question whether the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be deemed to have lapsed. The said lis was decided in favour of respondents 2 and 3 and against the appellant by the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated December 20, 1983. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was not a person aggrieved by the order dated December 20, 1983 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner holding that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in question for the construction of public park at Bhatinda by the appellant be deemed to have lapsed. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding that the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ petition seeking to challenge the said order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
8. As regards the other ground given by the High Court for rejecting the writ petition, that the State Government was always competent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it had been done for good reasons, it may be stated that there is nothing on the record to show that the State Government has issued a notification withdrawing from the acquisition and to abandon the acquisition under Section 48 of the Act. We are, therefore, unable to appreciate as to how the High Court has concluded that the State Government was always competent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it had been done for good reasons.
9. The Additional Deputy Commissioner did not proceed on the basis that the State Government had withdrawn from the acquisition. In the order dated December 20, 1983, he has held that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 should be deemed to have lapsed in view of the decisions of the High Court. The decision of Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Radhey Shyam Gupta case{1982 PLJ 349 : AIR 1982 P&H 519 : 1982 Land LR 561 (2)} on which reliance was placed by respondents 2 and 3 has been disapproved by this Court. (See : Improvement Trust, Faridkot v. Jagjit Singh{1987 Supp SCC 608} and State of Punjab v. Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Amritsar{1987 Supp SCC 687}.) The Additional Deputy Commissioner could not, therefore, drop the acquisition proceedings on the ground that notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act should be deemed to have lapsed. The order dated December 20, 1983 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable and the High Court was in error in upholding the said order.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court dated May 8, 1985 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3534 of 1984 is set aside, the said writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed and the order dated December 20, 1983 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda is set aside. The Collector, Bhatinda, is directed to proceed with the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. No orders to costs.
For Citation: (1993) 3 SCC 4
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.