THE GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION AND ANR. ETC.versusDR. MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN AND ORS. ETC.

         THE GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION                                     A
                     AND ANR. ETC.
                                     v.
         DR. MADAN MOHAN PRADHAN AND ORS. ETC.

                           NOVEMBER 8, 1995
                                                                                 B
         [K. RAMASWAMY AND K. S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

       Ss.4(1), SA, 6, 17(1), 17(4}-Acquisition of land-Govemment propos-        c
ing to const1uct offices and residential complex on the land-Exercise of
power under s.17(4) read with s.17(1)-0ne of land owners challenging the
acquisition in respect of a very small portion of land-Others either accepting
a word or receiving compensation under protest-High Court quashing the
notification 14 years after the possession was taken by Govemment-Held,
High Court not justified in inte1fe1ing with acquisition.                        D

       A notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisitioo Act, 1894 was
published acquiring 3.589 acres of land situated in Cuttack, for Telecom-
munication Department. In exercise of the power under s.17(4) read with
s.17(1) of the Act, compliance of provisions of s.SA was dispensed with. E
The wife of the respondent made a representation requesting to delete 24
decimals of land. The said representation remained undecided and the .
declaration under s.6 was published. The Land Acquisition Officer ~ade
award on 2.11.1976. Since the wife of respondent No. 1 died in the
meanwhile, he filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the
notification under s.4(1) and the declaration under s.6 of the Act. The High F
Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Government to consider
the representation of the respondent. On 3.6.1987 the representation was
rejected. Respondent No.1 filed another writ petition challenging the
notifications. The High Court quashed the notification under s.4(1) on the
ground that exercise of power under s.17(4) was invalid. Aggrieved, the G
Government filed the appeal by special leave.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1.1. The High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering
with the acquisition and quashing the notification under s.4(1) and the          H
                                   1
    2                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   declaration under s.6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since possession
    of the land had been taken on 12.4.1976, the land had vested in the
    Government free from all encumbrances, many land owners had accepted
    the award, and some had received the compensation under protest.
    Moreover, out of the extent of 3.589 acres of land, the claim of the
    respondent is with regard to only 24 decimals of land. (4-G; C; 3-G]
B
          Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1991] 4 SCC 531,
    relied on.

          1.2. ·The plan would indicate that the land acquired comprises the
    establishment of Officers' building and 2000 electronic exchange. Under
c   these circumstances, it would be highly inconvenient to exclude the land of
    the respondent from acquisition. The purpose of enquiry under Section SA
    is only to show that any other convenient and suitable land would be
    available other than the land sought to be acquired, or there is no public
    purpose. This issue would become academic, once the construction
D   started and was in progress. (4-D-E]

          Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope, (1995] 5 SCC 206, inap-
    plicable.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8752 of
E   1995 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.90 of the Orissa High
    Court in O.J.C. No. 435 of 1988.

         Ms. K. Aruareswari, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, C.V. Subba
F   Rao, R.K. Mehta, B.A. Mohanty, Ms. Aruna Mathur and A Mariar-
    putham, for the appearing parties.

                                                       .
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
G (for short, 'the Act') was published in January, 1973 acquiring Ac.3.589 of
   land situated in Cuttack for Telecommunication Department for residential
  ,quarters of the staff, Telephone exchange, Post office etc. In exercise of
   the power under Section 17(4) read with 17(1) enquiry under Section 5A
   was dispensed with. Before the declaration under Section 6 could be
H published a representation was made by the wife of the respondent No. 1
 GEN. MANAGER TELE-COMMUNICATION v. DR. M.M. PRADHAN                     3

i.e. Dr. Sarojini Pradhan requesting to delete 24 decimals of land for A
construction of Nursing Home etc. In the meanwhile, Cuttack Develop-
ment Authority declared the area to be commercial zone. In consequence,
the appellant made an aplication requesting to permit construction upto
90 ft. and rest of the land may be permitted to be released for residential
purposes. In "the meanwhile, the representation made by Dr. Sarojini was
                                                                             B
pending declaration under Section 6 was published on June 30, 1975. A
notice under Section 9 was served on November 1, 1975, possession of the
land was also claimed to have been taken on April 12, 1976 and was handed
over to the Union of India. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award
on November 2, 1976 and paid the amount to all persons who had accepted
the award or those who received under protest and it is said that as regards C
the amount awarded to Dr. Sarojini Pradhan, it was kept in deposit.

       On August 18, 1979 the respondent No. 1, since his wife died in the
meanwhile, filed W.P. No. 1139/79, challenging the validity of the notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) and Section 6 declaration. The High Court by order D
dated March 16, 1982 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the
Government to consider the representation of the respondent for exclusion
of the land from acquisition. After an elaborate consideration and scrutiny
of the necessary material, Union of India rejected the representation on
June 3, 1987. Thereafter the respondents filed W.P. No. 435 of 1988
challenging the notifications. In the meanwhile the headquarters of the E
Telecommunication Department was shifted from Cuttack to Bhubanesh-
war but it was decided that the existing staff would remain at Cuttack. The
High Court by the impugned order dated October 31, 1990 quashed the
notification under Section 4(1) on the ground that the exercise of the power
under Section 17(4) was invalid. Since the declaration was made after the p
amendment to Section 6 has come into existence, the notification under
Section 4(1) was held to be invalid. Thus these appeals by special leave.


      The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the High
Court was right and justified in interfering with the acquisition. It is seen G
that out of the extent of Ac.3.589, the claim of the respondents is only
Ac.0.240 dee. In other words, only around 1162 sq. yards. All others had
accepted the award, a few of them under protest. It is common knowledge
that possession would always be taken under a memo and handing over
also would be under a m~mo. It is a recognised usual practice in all the
acquisition proceedings. By operation of Section 17(1) even before award H
    4                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199S) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A could be made, the Land Acquisition Officer is entitled to take possession
    of the land. He did so. The time mentioned in Section 9 stood expired by
    then. Even otherwise, award was made on November 2, 1976. By operation
    of Section 16 of the Act right, title and interest in the land vested in the
    Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. Thereby the Govern-
    ment became the absolute owner with effect from April 12, 1976. This
B   Court in the case of Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
    [1991) 4 sec S31 had held that once possession has been taken validity of
    the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 cannot
    be gone into and Section 11 A does not apply.

c April It12,is1976
                already seen that the possession having already been taken on
                     and vested in the Government free from all encumbrances
    and many others having accepted the award and some had received the
    compensation under protest, the High Court was wholly unjustified in
    interfering with the acquisition. We have seen the plan produced before us
    which would indicate that the land acquired comprises the establishment
D   of Officers' building and 2000 electronic exchange. Under these cir-
    cumstances, it would be highly inconvenient to exclude this land from
    acquisition. The purpose of enquiry under Section SA is only to show that
    any other convenient and suitable land would be available other than the
    land sought to be acquired, or there is no public purpose. This issue would
    become academic, once the construction started and was in progress. The
E   ratio in the case of Oxford English School v. A. Hastings Hope reported in
    [199S) s sec 206 has no application to the facts of these appeals. In that
    case, neither the award was made before the amendment act has come
    into force nor was possession taken. In these circumstances, this Court held
    that declaration under Section 6 was invalid and direction given by the
    High Court to conduct enquiry under Section SA, after three years had
F   expired, is illegal. Section 4(1) also stood lapsed by operation of proviso
    to Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the ratio is clearly inapplicable to the
    facts of these appeals.

            In these circumstances, the High Court was wholly unjustified in
G interfering with the acquisition and quashing the notification and declara-
    tion under Section 6 of the Act.     ·

            The appeals are allowed. No costs.

     R.P.                                                     Appeals allowed.