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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEWAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/11/1995

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

CITATION:  1996 AIR  675            1996 SCC  (7) 394  JT 1995 (8)   348        1995 SCALE  (6)480

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The  notification   under  Section   4  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, "the Act"] was furnished on January  22, 1981.  Notices were given under Section 9 of the Act.  The Collector  after conducting an enquiry made an award on April 19, 1984 and allegedly took possession of the land on  the even date. The respondents assert that they are in possession.  The respondents  filed the  writ petition on May 13,  1985 challenging  the notification  under Section 4 [1] of the Act on the ground that dispensing with an enquiry under Section  5-A exercising  power under Section 17 [4] of the Act was bad in law as there was no urgency and the award was, on  the face  of the case, valid in law. The High Court by order  dated May  27,  1985  allowed  the  writ  petition following Dharam Singh vs. State of Haryana [C.W.P. No. 2891 of 1984  decided on 9th November, 1984]. Thus this appeal by special leave.      It is  contended by  the appellant that after the award had been  made, the  respondents received  compensation  and also sought reference under Section 18. The Land Acquisition Officer was  competent to  make the  award within  two years under Section  11-A of the Act after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The  award came  to be made within that period. So the proceedings under  Section 4 and 6 shall not stand lapsed by operation of Section 11-A of the Act.      It is  contended for the respondents that enquiry under Setion 5-A  is a valuable right and a minimum right by which the owner is entitled to show that the land is not fit to be used for  public purpose. It would be open to show that some other land  would be more suitable for public purpose, viz., land  for  market  committee.  Exercising  the  power  under Section 17  [4] dispensing  with the enquiry conducted under Section 5-A  is clearly  illegal. Though  there was delay on the part of the respondents in challenging the notification,

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

delay does  not mitigate  to take away the valuable right of approaching the  High Court.  The order of the High Court in Dharam Singh’s  case [supra]  was not challenged. It is open to the appellants to canvass the correctness of the award on that premise, though the award had become final.      The question  for consideration  is  whether  the  High Court was  justified in  interfering with  the  award  dated April 19,1984  made by  the Collector  and the  notification under Section  4 [1]. It is seen that the notification under Section 4  [1] and  the declaration were not challenged till May 13,  1985 while  the award  came to be made on April 13, 1984. The  respondents in  fact received  the  amount  under protest but  that fact  was not brought to the notice of the High Court.  It is also not in dispute that at that point of time an  application for reference under Section 18 was made within the limitation provided therein. It would appear that after the  writ petition  was  allowed  the  appliation  was withdrawn. After  the award was made, the Court would not be justified to  quash the  notifcation under Section 4 [1] and declaration under  Section 6 for dispending with the enquiry under Setion 5-A.      In these  circumstances, we  think that the appropriate course would  be to sustain the notification under Section 4 [1] and  the declaration  under Section 6 and the award made under Section  11. It  would be  open to  the respondents to make an application under Section 18 within 30 days from to- day to  the Collector  for  reference  to  Civil  Court  for determining the compensation.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed and the judgment of the High  Court under  appeal is  set aside. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.