Holding

The award was valid, the land vested in the government free of encumbrances, the High Court’s interference was unjustified, the delay was condoned, and ex‑gratia compensation is payable if the oil mill was constructed after the writ petition.

Summary

The Market Committee, Hodal appealed against a High Court order that had set aside a land acquisition award on the ground that the government’s dispensing with the enquiry required under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invalid. The award had been made on 19 May 1984, possession taken, and compensation paid under protest. The High Court’s decision was challenged by a special leave petition filed after a delay of 3240 days, which the Supreme Court condoned on the basis of a satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court held that the award was valid, the land vested in the government free of encumbrances, and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the government’s power under Section 17(4). It also directed the District Judge, Faridabad, to inquire into the construction of an oil mill and, if built after the writ petition, to award ex‑gratia compensation. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for further inquiry.

Issues considered

The validity of dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act after the award and possession had been taken.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award on that ground.
Whether a delay of 3240 days in filing a special leave petition can be condoned.
Whether the appellants must pay ex‑gratia compensation for a structure (oil mill) constructed after the writ petition.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 136
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 17(4), s. 18, s. 31, s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6
Limitation Act, 1963s. 5

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensationSection 5A enquirySpecial leave petitionDelay condonationEx‑gratia compensationVesting of landHigh Court interference

Judgment

~
MARKET COMMITTEE, HODAL A
v.
.KRISHAN MURARJ AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 6, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KJRPAL, JJ.] B

,. Land Acquisitioll Act, 1894 :

Ss.4(1), 5-A, 17(4)-Acquisition of lan!}--Award made-W.it petitioll
by la!ld ow!lers-High Cowt allowing w1it petition holding that dispellsing
c •
with inquily under S.5-A was invalid-Held, High Cowt !lot justified in
inteifering at belated stage.

Co!lstitution of India/Limitatioll Act, 1963 :

Article 136/S. 5-Petitioll for special leave-Limitatioll Delay of 3240
D
days-Co!ldo!led on proper and acceptable explanatio!l.

A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published in respect of the lands of the respondent-land owners on
22.1.1981 The award was made on 19.5.1984. The amount of compensation
was received under protest on 19.12.1984. The land owners filed a writ E
petition which was allowed by the High Court on 16.2.1985 holding that
dispensing with enquiry under S.SA of the Act was invalid. Thereafter the
matter was sent to the Central Agency in order to challenge the order of
the High Court, and when it was discovered that the Central Agency did
not take any steps as the matter related to the State Government, the
instant appeal by special leave was filed on 30.5.1994. Meanwhile the land F
owners claimed to have constructed oil mill on the land under ac11nisition.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. The award having been validly made on May 19.1984 and
possession of the lands having been taken, the lands vest in the Govern· G
ment nnder S.16 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 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
enr1uiry under S.SA at the belated stage. If the respondent had not made
any application for reference under S.18, they may file the same within one H
787
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A month. (789-E, 790-B] ..,.
2. Though, there is an inordinate delay of 3240 days, from February 26,
1985 to May 30, 1994, the date on which the petition for special leave was
filed, there is proper and acceptable explanation given by the appellants in
this case for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The matter was sent to
B the Central Agency and since the matter was 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 petition for
special leave came to be filed on May 30, 1994. Delay is condoned. (788-G]
·~
3. The District Judge, Faridabad would have an enquiry made as to
• c when the oil mill came to be constructed. The appellants would make ex-
gratia compensation for the value of the building as determined by the Dis-
trict Judge, if he comes to the conclusion that the mill was constructed after
the writ petition had been allowed. (789-F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10498 of
D 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.85 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in Civil W.P. No. 5588/84.

Altaf Ahmed, ASG., U.R. Lalit, B. Dutta, K.C. Bajaj for Ms. Indu
E Malhotra, K.B. Rohtagi, Baldev Atreya, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, Ajay Kumar
Agrawal, B.S. Jain, J.P. Singh, G.C. Tyagi, Sunil Kumar Jain, Jatinder K.
Bhatia for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F 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 in ordinate delay of 3240
days, merely 9 years, from February 26, 1985 to May 30, 1994, the date of
which S.L.P. was filed, there is proper explanation given by the appellants
G
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 anrl 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
H explanation offered is just and rational and can be acceptable. It is accord-
MKT. COMMITTEE. HO DAL v. KRISHAN MURARI 789

ingly accepted. Delay is accordingly condoned. A

It is contended by Shri Datta, learned Senior counsel for the respon-
dent that on account of the delay the appellants have constructed oil mill
expending considerable money. Though they have received the compensa-
tion under protest the respondents are prepared to return the compensa-
tion with suitable interest as may be determined by the Court and that,
B
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 C
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. D
The Writ Petition was filed four months thereafter, namely, on 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 validity 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 E
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.

Ho\vcver, since the respondents had claimed to have constructed the f
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. It it was constructed between
.Tanuarv 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 G
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 H

'
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP.4S.C.R.

A 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 leaned
District Judge. If the respondents had not made any application for refer-
ence, it may be open to them to make the application under S.18 within
one month from today.
B
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

R.P .. Appeal allowed.
.. .