http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL NIGAM CENTRAL STORES DIVISION, U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SURESHA NAND JUYAL @ MUSA RAM (DECEASED) BY L.RS. ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted      We have learned counsel on both sides      Notifications under  section 4(1)  Land Acquisition Act (for short,  the ’Act’)  was published  on May  7, 1986. The Notice under  Section 5-A was issued and the objection filed on   December   17,   1986   were   over-ruled   after   due consideration. Declaration  under Section 6 was published on August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award came to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was taken on  the said  date. The  respondents  filed  the  writ petition on August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition by  the impugned  judgment dated  August 31,1992 in W.P. No.  3354/1988. The  question is  whether the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition officer was vitiated by any error  manifest   on  the  face  of  the  record  warranting interference by  the High  Court? Shri  Naresh Kumar  Shrma, learned counsel  for  the  respondents,  contends  that  the respondent/tenant has  not been given any opportunity at the enquiry under  Section 5-A.  The land  is the only source of livelihood and  scheme was  temporary. In  view of  the long lapse of  time the  purpose of the acquisition under Section 4(1) of  the Act  no longer survived. Therefore, it does not serve and  purpose. Counter  affidavit filled  in  the  High Court by respondents shows that pursuant to the notice under Rule 30  of the  Land Acquisition Rules, the respondents had filed the objections and it is stated therein as under:      "The concerned  farmers were issued      notices under Section 5-A under the      Land Acquisition  Act and  Rule  30      giving 30  days  time  for  raising      objection  on  2.9.1986,  concerned      farmer  Shri   Mussa  alias  Swesha      Nanda Objected  which was  taken on      record."      Obviously, after consideration of all the objection and rejection  thereof,   declaration  under   Section   6   was published.  As  stated  earlier,  the  award  was  made  and symbolic possession  was taken  on December  17, 1988. Under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the circumstances,  the land  stood vested in the State free from all  encumbrances. After  the  proceedings  had  become final, the  writ petition   came to be filed on May 19,1989. The mere  fact that due to lapse of time no action was taken after the  filing of the writ petition, does not give ground for interference.  The further fact that public purpose must have been  served  by  constructing  the  quarters  for  the officers elsewhere,  is without any substance. The mere fact that on  account of  the pending litigation, no construction was made,  is no  ground  to  say  that  notification  under section 4(1)  was vitiated  by any  error of  law;  equally, increase in the prices of the lands is no ground.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court  stands set aside. The notification under Section 4(1) and  declaration under  Section  6  of  the  Act  stand restored. No costs.