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

PETITIONER: MARKET COMMITTEE, HODAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHAN MURARI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 311        JT 1995 (8)   494  1995 SCALE  (6)485

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Having heard  the learned  counsel on both the sides we think that  it is  a case for our interference. Though there is an  inordinate delay  of 3240  days, merely 9 years, from February 26,  1985 to May 30, 1994, the date on which S.L.P. was  filed,   there  is  proper  explanation  given  by  the appellants in  this case  for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal.  It was  not in dispute that the matter was sent to the  Central Agency  and since the matter is of the State of Haryana,  the Central  Agency did  not pursue the matter. When it was discovered that the Central Agency had not taken the steps  in filing the appeal, the S.L.P. came to be filed on May  30,  1994.  The  explanation  offered  is  just  and rational and  can be acceptable. It is accordingly accepted. Delay is accordingly condoned.      It is  contended by  Shri Datta, learned Senior counsel for the  respondents  that  on  account  of  the  delay  the appellants have  constructed oil mill expending considerable money. Though  they have  received  the  compensation  under protest  the   respondents  are   prepared  to   return  the compensation with  suitable interest as may be determined by the Court  and  that,  therefore,  it  may  not  be  a  case warranting  interference.   We  find   that  there   is   no justification for accepting the contention.      It is  seen that  the notification  under s.4(1) of the L.A. 1  of 1994 for short ‘the Act’ was published on January 22, 1981. Declaration under s.6 was published on January 23, 1981. and possession was taken on April 29, 1981. "though it is claimed that the possession was with the respondent". The award came  to be  made on  April 19, 1984. Compensation was offered as  required under  s. 31  of the  Act  and  it  now transpires, though  it was  not mentioned in the High Court, that  the  amount  was  received  under  protest.  The  Writ Petition  was  filed  four  months  thereafter,  namely,  on

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

December 19,  1984. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition on February  16, 1985  holding that  dispensing with enquiry under s.5A  is invalid.  It would  be seen  that  the  award having been  validly made  on May 19, 1984 and possession of the  lands   having  been  taken,  the  lands  vest  in  the Government under s.16 absolutely free from all encumbrances. The High  Court was  not justified  in interfering  with the exercise of power by the Government under s.17(4) dispensing with the  enquiry under  s.5A at  that belated  stage. Under these circumstances the appeal is to be allowed.      However, since  the respondents  had  claimed  to  have constructed the  oil mill, on the facts and circumstances in this case,  it would  be proper  that  the  District  Judge, Faridabad is directed to have an enquiry made as to when the oil mill  came to  be constructed.  If  it  was  constructed between January  22, 1985  and December  19, 1984 or pending writ  petition   without  permission   of  the   court,  the respondents are not entitled to claim any equities by way of compensation. On  the other  hand, if  the mill  came to  be constructed after February 16, 1985 i.e. after writ petition was  allowed  till  date,  then  equity  requires  that  the appellants shall have to make ex-gratia compensation for the value of the building. The learned District Judge also would cause an  enquiry to be made with regard to the value of the construction that  was made  on. In the event of the finding that it  was constructed  after the  judgment  of  the  High Court, the  appellant shall  pay the  compensation  for  the value of  the construction  of the  mill within  a period of four months  from the  date of  the  decision  made  by  the learned District  Judge. If the respondents had not made any application for  reference, it  may be  open to them to make the application under s.18 within one month from today.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.