http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: H.M.KELOGIRAO & ORS. AND H.M.C. SUBHANJI RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF A.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/09/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:               THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand                Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami Raju Ramachandran  , Sr.Adv.,  D.Rama Krishna  Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, L.Nageswara Rao, B.Parthasarthi and A. Subba Rao, Advs. with him for the appearing parties.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5509 OF 1995                          O R D E R      These two  Civil Appeals  by special leave are directed against the  common judgment of the High Court of judicature at Andhra Pradesh dated 28th April, 1989.      The relevant facts for disposal of these appeals are:-      That land  measuring 9.87  cents cm  prising in various survey numbers  of Anantapur Town were sought to be acquired by the Government at the request of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport  Corporation (hereinafter  ’the Corporation’) for purposes  of constructing a bus stand at Anantapur.  The Notification under  Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter ’  the Act’)  was published  on 31th May, 1979. Simultaneously, declaration  under Section  6 of the Act was also published  and emergency  provision under Section 17(4) of the  Act were invoked and the enquiry under Section 5A of the act  was dispensed  with.   It appears, that some of the land owners  challenged the  acquisition proceedings through Writ Petition  Nos. 9801 of 1983 and 8133 of 1985 in respect of Survey  Nos. 2067/4A,  2071/1A and 151/1B.  The thrust of the challenge  was that  the substance  of the  Notification which was  required to  be published  at a  public place  as required by  law had  not been published.  Writ Petition No. 9801 of  1983 was  allowed on  18th October, 1985 while Writ Petition No.  8133 of 1985 was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 12th March, 1986.      The  Notification  which  was  the  subject  matter  of challenge in  the two  writ petitions was quashed in respect of survey  numbers detailed  in each  one of  the  two  writ petitions.     In  so  far  as  the  appellants  herein  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

concerned, they  were not  parties to  either  of  the  writ petitions.   A notice  under Section 9 of the Act was issued on 17the  March, 1987  and was  served on  the appellants on 23rd March,  1987.   All the  appellants filed objections to the notice  on 3rd  April, 1987  before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming  enhanced compensation  at the  rate of Rs. 250/- per  sq. feet.    Award  enquiry  was  held  in  which admittedly all  the  appellants  participated.    The  Award enquiry was  completed on 5th April, 1987 and on 10th April, 1987 the  Land Acquisition  Collector made  his Award fixing the market  value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 33,000/- per  acre.   Aggrieved, the  appellants filed  writ petitions in  the High  Court on  14th April,  1987.  In the writ petitions  the main  submission  was  that  since  that Notification issued  under Section  4 of  the Act  had  been quashed in Writ Petition Nos. 9801 of 1983 and 8133 of 1985, the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act was invalid and as such  all further proceedings were also void. Counter was filed in  the High  Court by  the Corporation wherein it was stated that the Corporation had taken possession of the land soon after  the Notification  under  Section  4(1)  and  the declaration under  Section 6  of the  Act had been published and that  it had  since constructed buildings and structures on the  land and  that he bus stand was already functioning. It was  also averred  that the bus stand in question was the only bus stand in the area and that its construction was for public purpose.  The Corporation submitted that it had spent huge amount  for the construction of the bus stand which was being used by hundreds of buses every day.      The Division  Bench of  the High  Court which heard the writ petitions  alongwith some  pending  writ  appeals  non- suited  the   appellants  on  the  ground  that  they  never protested either when the construction was taken up nor even after the  judgment in  Writ Petition  Nos. 9801 of 1983 and 8133 of 1985 was given and waited till the Award was made in their case  to question  the  validity  of  the  acquisition proceedings.   The Division Bench found that there was delay and laches  on the part of the appellants and the conduct of the appellants  in the established fats and circumstances of the case disentitled them to any relief in proceedings under Article 226  of the  Constitution  of  India.    The  Bench, however, opined  that notwithstanding  the dismissal  of the writ petitions,  the appellants  shall not be precluded from seeking or pursuing a reference under Section 18 of the Act.      Aggrieved by  the said  order the appellants are before us.      We have  heard learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and examined the record.      The act  that the possession of the land was taken over soon after  the Notification  under Section  4(1) of the Act and declaration  under Section  6 of  the Act  was published because of  invoking of  the provisions  of Section 17(4) of the Act  is not  in dispute.    That  would  show  that  the possession of the land was taken over from the appellants as early as  in 1979,  almost two  decades ago.  It is also not disputed that bus stand has since been constructed at a huge expense and since 1982-1983 that bus stand is functional and that is  the only  bus stand  to cater  to the  residents of Anantapur and the neighbouring areas.  it is also not denied that all  the appellants  had filed  their objections to the notice under  Section 9  of the  Act and in those objections they had  only claimed  enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 250/-  per sq.  feet and no grievance was made about the invalidity of  the notice  under Section  9 of the Act or of the  earlier   proceedings.     All   the   appellants   had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

participated in  the Award  enquiry and  after the Award was made on 10th April, 1987, the appellants approached the High Court through  writ  petitions  under  Article  226  of  the Constitution of  India.    It  is  also  not  disputed  that majority  of  the  Land  owners  ave  already  received  the compensation after  the Award was made and some of them have also taken  recourse to  proceedings under Section 18 of the Act.     Should  in  this  fact  situation  the  acquisition proceedings be  quashed and  the land on which the bus stand exists be  directed to be returned to the appellants and the general public  made to  suffer? The answer, in our opinion, has to be in the negative.      In a somewhat similar situation, a three judge Bench of this Court  in State  of Rajasthan and others vs. D.R. Laxmi and    others:     (1996)    6     SCC    445    opined    :      "Under the scheme of the Act, after      the  possession  of  the  land  was      taken either under Section 17(2) or      Section 16,  the land stands vested      in  the   State   free   from   all      encumbrances.  Thereafter, there is      no  provision   under  the  act  to      divest the  title which was validly      vested in the State.  Under Section      48(1) before  possession is  taken.      the State  Government is  empowered      to withdraw from the acquisition by      its publication in the Gazette."      In taking  the aforesaid  view the Bench relied upon an earlier judgment  of the  Court in  Senjeevanagar Medical  & Health Employees’  Coop. Society  vs. Mohd.  Abdul  Wahab  : (1996) 3  SCC 600  which again  was a judgment rendered by a three Judge  Bench.  We are in respectful agreement with the view of the Benches noticed above.      Thus, we  have  no  hesitation  to  hold  that  in  the established facts and circumstances of this case there is no scope for  now directing  the land,  which had vested in the State and  of which  possession had  been taken by the State almost two decades ago to be now returned to the appellants.      The fact,  however, remains  that  the  appellants  had approached the High Court through writ petitions as early as on 14th  April, 1987  and have  filed these  appeals in this Court in  1989-1990.   The appellants  had not  accepted the Award as  the same  was put  in issue  by them  in the  writ petitions.   They have not taken recourse to the proceedings under Section  18 of the Act either.  The only relief which, therefore, appears  appropriate to  us in  this case  is  to grant time  to the  appellants to  seek  a  reference  under Section 18 of the Act, if so advised, as that course, in our opinion, would  be both  equitable and  in the  interest  of justice.   We therefore,  while dismissing the appeals grant six weeks’  time to  the appellants  from the  date of  this order to take proceedings under Section 18 of the Act, if so advised.   In case  the appellants file an application under Section 18  of the  Act, no  objection with  regard  to  the period of  limitation in  moving the  same shall  be  raised against  them.     The  reference  Court  shall  decide  the application  in  accordance  with  law  on  its  own  merits expeditiously  and   nothing  said   hereinabove  shall   be construed as  any expression  of opinion  on the  merits  as regards the quantum of compensation.  Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.