STATE OF ORISSAversusDHOBEI SETHI AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 511
- Decided
- 29 August 1995
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Writ petitions filed more than seven years after a notification under the Land Acquisition Act are barred by laches, and a subsequent purchaser has no right to claim interest in land acquired under such a notification; therefore the State’s appeals are allowed.
Summary
The State of Orissa issued a notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 16 July 1970, invoking the urgency clause s.17(4) to dispense with the enquiry required by s.5‑A, and later took possession of the land. Two writ petitions were filed in the Orissa High Court: one (OJC 43/77) challenged the validity of the notification and the use of the urgency clause, and the other (OJC 1573/78) sought a claim of interest by a purchaser who had bought part of the land after the notification. The High Court allowed both petitions, setting aside the notification and granting the purchaser’s claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition challenging the notification was barred by laches because it was filed more than seven years after the notification, and that a subsequent purchaser could not claim any interest in land already acquired under the Act. Consequently, the High Court’s interference with the notification was improper and the State’s appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging a notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act can be entertained after the lapse of seven years.
- Whether the urgency clause under s.17(4) permitting dispense of the enquiry under s.5‑A is valid.
- Whether a subsequent purchaser can claim interest in land after a notification for acquisition has been issued.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 10, s. 17(4), s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6, s. 9
Subjects
Judgment
STATE OF ORISSA A
v.
DHOBEI SETHI AND ANR.
AUGUST 29, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894- Sections 4( 1), 5-A and 17(4).
Land Acquisition-Notification~hallenge after seyen years-Held not
pennissible-Sale made after issue of Notification-Owner held not entitled C
to interest.
The appellant-State issued a Notification under section 4(1) of the
Land acquisition Act, 1894 on July 16, 1970; invoked the urgency clause
under section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under section 5-A and
consequently took possession of the land. Two petitions - one challenging D
the Notification and the other claiming interest for part of the land
pursuant to a sale made after the issue of the Notification were allowed by
the High Court.
Allowing the State's appeals, this Court
E
HELD: The writ petition having been filed after 7 years of the issue
of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the High
Court ought to have dismissed the same on the ground of !aches. There·
fore, the High Court has not properly exercised its power under Article
226 of the Constitution in upsetting the notification. The High Court wa·s
F
also unjustified in allowing other writ petition because the petitioner was
a subsequent purcha~er. [140-F; E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3077-78
of 1980.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.80 of the Orissa High
Court in O.J. C. No. 43/77 & 1573 of 1978.
Raj Kumar Mehta for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered : H
139
140 S!JPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Though notice has been served on the respondents, no one has
appeared in person or through counsel.
A notification under s.4(1) of the Land acquisition Act [for short,
'the Act') was published on July 16, 1970 acquiring Ac. 2.02 dee. of land
in Survey Nos. 2309-2316, 2318, 2501, 2506-10, 2530- 32 situated at village
B Pubakhand for the purpose of construction of the Tahsil office building
and staff quarters at Niali. Along with the said notification, the appellant
invoked the urgency clause under s.17(4) of the Act dispensing with the
enquiry under s.5-A of the Act. The declaration under s.6 of the Act was
published on April 27, 1972. Notice under ss.9 and 10 was published in the
c locality in December, 1975 and possession of the land was taken on
December 16, 1976. Sometime in 1977 O.J.C. NO. 43 of 1977 was filed
questioning the validity of the exercise of power under s.17(4) dispensing
with the enquiry under s.5-A Similarly, some other owners filed O.J.C. No.
1573 of 1978, claiming interest for part of the land pursuant to a sale made
after the notification namely in November, 1973: Both the writ petitions
D were allowed by the High Court on the ground that there was no justifica-
tion to dispense with the enquiry s.5-A and public purpose would have
been served by allowing the claimants to submit their objections.
As regards the second writ petition, namely, OJC 1573 of 1978, the
E petitioner therein cannot raise this objection because he is a subsequent
purchaser and that the High Court was unjustified in allowing the writ
petition.
As regards OJC 43 of 1977, in view of the fact that the notification
was issued as early as on July 16, 1970, the writ petition having been filed
F after 7 years, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on
the ground of !aches. We, therefore, hold that the High Court has not
properly exercised its power under Article 226 of the constitution in
upsetting the notification dated December 16, 1970 after a lapse of 7 years.
The appeals are according all~wed but in the circumstances without
G
costs.
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.