STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusDEWAN SINGH AND ORS.

A                            STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
                                         v.
                               DEWAN SINGH AND ORS.

                                           NOVEMBER 6, 1995

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

           Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

           Ss.4(1), 5-A, 6, 17(4)-Acquisition of land-Award made-Land
C owners receiving compensation under protest and filing writ petition challeng-
      ing exercise ofpower wider S.17(4) dispensing with inquiry under S.5-A-High
      Court allowing claim-Held, High Court not justified in inteiferin~Ap­
    . propriate course would be to sustain the proceedings-£and owners allowed
      to make application for reference to Civil Court for determination of compen-
     sation.
D
           A notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
     published on 22.1.1981 in respect of the land of the respondent-land-
     owners. The Collect or made the award on 19.4.1984. On 13.5.1985 the land
     owners filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging<he notifica-
E    tion under S.4(1) and the award on the ground that exercise of power
     under S.17(4) by the Collector and dispensing with enquiry under S.5-A of
     the Act by him was bad in law as there was no urgency. The High Court
     allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal
     by special leave.

F              Allowing the appeal, this Court
                 i: :f - '   , '   ' ,.,

            HELD : 1. After the award was made, the Court would not be
     justified to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration
     under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for dispensing with the
G    enquiry under Section 5-A. [786-E]

            2. The notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under S.6
      of the Act 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.
H     Au application for reference under Sectiou 18 was made within the limita-
                                                  784                                 <
                         STATE v. DEWAN SINGH                            785

tion provided therein, and after the writ petition was allowed the applica- A
tion was withdrawn. In these circumstances the appropriate course would
be to sustain the notification under S.4(1) and the declaration under S.6
and the award made under S.11. It would be open to the respondents to
make an application under S.18 to the Collector for reference to Civil
Court for determining the compensation. [786-E-F]
                                                                                B
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10446 of
1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.85 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 2496/85.
                                                                                c
     Altaf Ahmed, ASG., U.R. Lalit, B. Datta, K.C. Bajaj for Ms. Indu
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 :                        D

        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 enqniry           E
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 notifica-
tion 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
                                                                                F
was bad in law as there was no urgency and the award was, on the face of
the case, bad in law. The High Court by order dated May 27, 1985 allowed
the writ petition following Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana C.W.P. No.
2891 of 1984 decided on 9th November, 1984. Thus this appeal by special
leave.
                                                                                G
      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 Amend-
ment 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       H
    786                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of Section 11-A of the Act.

          It is contended for the respondents that enquiry under Section 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
B   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, 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
c    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 jus-
    tified in interfering with the award dated April 19, 1984 made by the
D   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
E   made within the limitation provided therein. It would appear that after the
    writ petition was allowed the application was withdrawn. After the award
    was made, the Court would not be justified to quash the notification under
    Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 for dispending with the
    enquiry under Section 5-A. ·

F          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
G    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.

     R.P.                                                      Appeal allowed.