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

PETITIONER: MIRZA MAJID HUSSAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2243            1995 SCC  (2) 422  JT 1995 (2)    93        1995 SCALE  (1)409

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   This  appeal by special leave arises from the order  of the   High   Court  of  Madhva  Pradesh   at   Jabalpur   in Misc.Petition No.484 of 1987, dated 5.1.1988. 2.   Notification under section (4) of the Land  Acquisition Act  was issued acquiring a large extent of 387.50 acres  of land for submergence of Barna Dam irrigation project in  the State of M.P. The lands of the appellant were also required. The  Land  Acquisition Officer by his award  dated  5.9.1969 awarded compensation to the appellant.  Thereafter, it would appear  that  the appellant had  received  the  compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest but, according to the appellant, it was under protest.  Be it  as it  may,  on the rejection of the reference,  the  appellant filed  a  revision before the District Judge  in  1982.   By order  dated  20.6.82, the District Judge rejected  the  re- vision.   In 1987, the appellant filed the Writ Petition  in the High Court which was dismissed by the High Court on  the ground  of  inordinate delay.  It was held that  though  the Collector had rejected the reference on 2.4.75, the revision was filed in the Tribunal and the District Judge rejected it on 29.6.83. The petitioner who had slept over the matter for more  than 5 years, filed the Writ Petition.  From the  date of the order of the L.A. Collector till date of filling  the writ  petition  more than 10 years have  elapsed.   On  that ground the High Court refused to grant the relief. 3.   The  State  Legislature of M.P. amended clause  (b)  of sub-s.(2) of sec. 18 and inserted sub-s.(3)thus:               "Any  order  made  by  the  Collector  on  the               application   under  this  section  shall   be               subject  to the revision by the High Court  as               if the collector were the Court subordinate to               the  High Court within the meaning of  section               115 C.P.C." Thus,  it could be seen that against the order of  rejection

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

of  reference by the Collector on 2 5.75  only  jurisdiction that could be exercised as per the amendment is by the  High Court  under s.115 C.P.C. Thereby, by exercise of the  power by  District  Judge  in  this  behalf  is  clearly   without authority of law or jurisdiction.  The order of the District Judge, therefore, is a nullity. 4.   Then we have to see whether the appellant was justified in  approaching the High Court after an inordinate delay  of more  than  10  years  from the date of  the  order  of  the Collector  or at any rate from the date of the order  passed by the District Judge.  The High Court exercised its  juris- diction under Art.226 but not under s. 115 C.P.C. Even if it is to be converted as a revision under Sec. 115 C.P.C.,  the order  of  the High Court is not vitiated by  any  error  of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.   The  High  Court  has  rightly  refused   to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction after an  inordinate delay of more than 5 years from the date of the order of the District Judge and more than 10 years from the date of the 96 order  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector.   Under  these circumstances, we do not think that it is a case  warranting interference by this Court under Article 136. 5.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 97