| Headnote |
Issues for consideration: Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court negating the plea of land owner seeking ‘lapse’ of the acquisition proceedings in terms of s. 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act is liable to be interfered with; whether decision of Nagpur Improvement Trust refusing to grant alternative plot, as directed by the High Court, requires interference; and what suitable relief could be granted to land owner on account of delay caused in determination of compensation despite time bound directions by the High Court.Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s. 11-A – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 – Acquisition under the State Act-NIT Act with the aid of LA Act – Applicability of s. 11-A in the acquisition proceedings under the NIT Act – On facts, notifi cation issued u/s. 39 of the NIT Act in 1962, possession was taken in the year 1970 and the road was constructed, in the year 1986 award passed in case of the other land owners and in 2013 an ex-parte award passed – Plea of lapsing of acquisition proceedings by the land owner:Held: Provisions of s. 11-A of LA Act which provides for lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings, would not be applicable where acquisition was made under NIT Act – In view thereof, no error committed by the High Court in negating the plea of lapsing of acquisition proceedings as raised by land owner. [Paras 13 and 15]Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 – Rejection of the request of the land owner for grant of alternate piece of land by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, as directed by the High Court – Interference with:[2023] 12 S.C.R. 159 : 2023 INSC 818 Held: By the impugned order passed by the High Court, directions were issued to NIT to consider the prayer for the grant of alternate land to the land owner – Said prayer was rejected by the NIT, inter-alia stating that grant of alternate land in lieu of compensation was not possible in the absence of any provisions in the Act – Said plea does not have any statutory backing under NIT Act, thus, refusal made by NIT does not warrant any interference – After the rejection of the representation to grant alternate land particularly in absence of any statutory backing, there is no inclination to entertain the said plea – Nonetheless, the said prayer was not seriously pressed by the land owner and prayer was confi ned to grant of adequate compensation. [Para 16]Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 – Delay caused in determination of compensation despite time bound directions by the High Court – Publication of preliminary notifi cation in 1962, the possession of the subject land taken in 1970 and the road was constructed which is in public use since then – Award passed in 1986, in the case of other land owners, discriminating the instant land owner wherein even after directions of the High Court in 2009 to passan award, prayer for the grant of alternate plot was rejected by NIT, and ‘ex-parte’ award was passed in 2013 during pendency of the instant appeal and as such land owners could not get compensation of the land since last fi ve decades – Grant of suitable relief to the land owner:Held: In view of the said chain of events, the delay cannot be attributed to the land owner – Value of the land which may be on the date of preliminary notifi cation cannot be equated on the date of passing of ‘ex-parte’ award – As per s. 48-A of LA Act, if the award is not passed within a period of two years from the date of fi nal notifi cation, compensation for the damages suff ered due to delay is to be determined as prescribed therein – Thus, to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to mould the relief – ‘Ex-parte’ award would not be given eff ect to – Land Acquisition Offi cer to determine the compensation afresh taking the market value of the subject land as on the date of passing of ‘ex-parte’ award – Land owner also entitled to all other statutory benefi ts as per the provisions of the LA Act to be calculated from the date of preliminary notifi cation, as also be entitled to compensation for damages suff ered in view of delay. [Paras 21, 27, 34 and 35] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 – s. 67 – Award of tribunal how to be determined – Acquisition of land under NIT Act – Determination of compensation – Passing of an award – Applicability of the said provisions of the LA Act:Held: s. 67 makes it clear that for determining the compensation and to pass an award, the provisions of the LA Act would be applicable – Thus, LA Act has its application to such extent for land acquired by the NIT subject to the modifi cations made under the NIT Act – Applicability of s. 11 of LA Act which deals with enquiry and award, and s. 16 of LA Act which deals with power of Collector to take possession, even in acquisition under the NIT Act is ‘sine qua non’ – While making an inquiry u/s. 11, the applicability of s. 9 which deals with issuance of notice to persons interested, is an integral procedure in the proceedings – Thus, for determination of compensation to pass an award in case of acquisition of land under NIT Act, the applicability of the said provisions of the LA Act has been duly recognised in s. 67 of the NIT Act. [Para 17]Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 – Compulsory acquisition of land – Inordinate delay in granting compensation to the land owner from the date of taking over of possession – Duty of the State and the authorities:Held: Eminent domain of the State cannot be doubted – Right of the land owner enshrined u/Art. 300-A and Art. 31-A has been recognized as a human/civil right , thus if any individual is to be divested or deprived of the said right by the State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for the land so acquired for public purpose – While striking a balance between eminent domain of the State and human/civil rights of an individual, an obligation is on the State and its authorities to pass an award within a reasonable time – On compulsory acquisition of land, if the award is not passed within a reasonable time duly compensating such an individual, it would cause grave hardship and it would adversely aff ect the livelihood of the land loser – Delay in determining compensation uproots the land losers, however, to meet the ends of justice and to rationalize the equity, switching the date of market value in determining compensation is found necessary. [Para 32]LOONKARAN GANDHI (D) THR. LR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. |
