Case: Laxami Devi Vs. State Of Bihar

compensation for the expropriation. 22. The Constitution Bench of this Court had to interpret Section 17 in Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of U.P. (1967) 1 SCR 373 , but in somewhat different circumstances. The State proposed to take over large tracts of land “for limestone quarry” on urgency basis; by virtue of Section 17(4), Section 5A was held not to be available. The Collector of Mirzapur was directed by the Notification under Section 17(1) of the Act to take possession of the “waste or arable land” even in the absence of an Award being published. The Constitution Bench held that the limestone quarries belonging to the Appellant, which were proposed to be acquired, could not possibly be conceived of or categorised as “waste or arable land, the acquisition, inasmuch as it proceeded under Section 17, could not pass muster of law. What is very pertinent for the present purposes is that the Constitution Bench had declined issuance of a mandamus commanding the State to restore possession of the land to the Appellant, not because this was inconceivable or impermissible in law or because of any provisions in the L.A. Act, but rather because the lands had validly vested in the State of U.P. under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. The conundrum of the restoration of the land had directly arisen before the Constitution Bench and since it declined the prayer for other reasons, it follows that there is no constraint or impediment for the grant of an appropriate Writ in this regard. This will fortify our distillation of the ratio desidendi of Satendra Prasad Jain which is circumscribed and restricted to the extent that the State is not empowered to withdraw from an acquisition once it has taken possession of the said lands. 23. We do, however, recognize that Satendra Prasad Jain has been interpreted more broadly in the past. In Allahabad Development Authority vs. Naziruzzaman (1996) 6 SCC 424 , General Manager, Telecommunication vs. Dr. Madan Mohan Pradhan 1995 Supp (4) SCC 268, and Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Mota Lal Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394 , this Court has dismissed the landowners’ challenges to the respective acquisitions on the basis of Avinash Sharma and Satendra Prasad Jain. It is pertinent to note that all three of these cases were brief in their explanations of Avinash Sharma and Satendra Prasad Jain, and did not examine their rationes decidendi, their innate contradictions, their intentions or their consequences at any length. We thus feel it appropriate to rely on our own detailed exploration of these cases, as opposed to simply placing reliance on the largely contradictory case law that has developed over the years. It was for this reason that we had revisited the curial concept of ratio decidendi. 24. The scenario before us depicts the carelessness and the callousness of the State, quite different from the situation in Satendra Prasad Jain and Avinash Sharma. The Appellants herein are being denied just and fair compensation for their land in proceedings which commenced in 1987, despite the directions of the High Court passed as early as in 1988 to pass an award within four months. The raison d’etre behind the introduction of Section 11A was for the landowners to have a remedy in the event of an award not being passed expeditiously. If Satendra Prasad Jain is interpreted to mean that Section 11A will not apply to any acquisition under the urgency provisions, landowners such as the Appellants before us will have no protection, even if they are not paid full compensation for their land for decades. This cannot be in keeping with the legislative intent behind this Section. Furthermore, keeping empirical evidence in sight, we make bold to opine that circumstances require this Court to reconsider its view that even if the stated public interest or cause has ceased to exist, any other cause can substitute it, especially where the urgency provisions have been invoked.25. We feel it imperative to distinguish between the setting aside of an acquisition and the reversion of possession to the erstwhile landowners. While the L.A. Act and the judgments discussed above do not allow for the latter, we are of the considered opinion that this does not necessarily imply that the former is also not an option. Both the abovementioned cases dealt with a factual situation in which the Government was attempting to set the acquisition of the land at naught so that they would not have to pay compensation to acquire it. Setting aside of the acquisition in those cases was tantamount to reverting the possession to the original owners. In this scenario, however, the two do not have to go hand in hand. In allowing the acquisition of land that the Government finds necessary to be set aside, we would not necessarily be holding that the land revert to the Appellants, as the alternative of permitting the Government to keep possession provided it re-acquires the land with a new Section 4 notification exists. This option, particularly in the present factual matrix, does the least violence to the intent and content of the L.A. Act, in that it upholds Section 11A even in cases of acquisition under Section 17 while preserving the requirement of Section 17 that the unencumbered possession of the land remain vested in the Government. It also protects the rights of the landowners, thus fulfilling the intent of Section 11A, while allowing the Government to acquire land in cases of emergencies without its title being challenged, which is the avowed intention of Section 17. Any other interpretation of the law would serve to protect only those landowners who had approached the Court to stop the Government from undoing an emergency acquisition, while leaving in the cold equally aggrieved landowners seeking to enforce their right to fair compensation for their land. Even equity demands that the party bearing the consequence of the delay in the Award ought not to be the innocent landowner, but the errant State.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. Section 11A has been introduced by Act 68 of 1984 prescribing a limitation of two years for the making of an Award by the Collector. It is only post this event that Section 16 empowers the Collector to take possession of the land which thereupon vests absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. We may clarify that the wordhas two connotations – the first and primary one relates to possession of land; and the second, an adjunctory one, pertains additionally to the title of that land. But this distinction has not been drawn in India since this Court has held in several cases thatin the circumstances with which we are presently concerned, covers and encompasses the possession as well as the title of the land.The salient concomitants of Section 17(1) deserve enumeration. Firstly, the Section is attracted even though an Award has not been made which, it appears to us, clearly indicates that the completion of this exercise has not been obliterated or dispensed with but has been merely deferred. An unambiguous and unequivocal statement could have been made excluding the requirement of publishing an Award. Secondly, it is available only on the expiration of fifteen days from the issuance of the Section 9 notice. This hiatus of fifteen days must be honoured as its purpose appears to be to enable the affected or aggrieved parties to seek appropriate remedy before they are divested of the possession and the title over their land. The Government shall perforce have to invite and then consider Objections preferred under Section 5A, which procedure as painstakingly and steadfastly observed by this Court constitutes the Constitutional right to property of every citizen; inasmuch as Section 17(4) enables the obliteration of this valuable right, this Court has repeatedly restated that valid and pressing reasons must be present to justify the invocation of these provisions by the Government. Thirdly, possession of the land can be taken only if it is needed for public purpose, which term stands defined in the preceding Section 3(f).A conjoint reading of Sections 17 and 3(f) makes it apparent to us that urgency provisions cannot be pressed into service or resorted to if the acquisition of land is for Companies; however we must be quick to add that this question does not arise before us. Fourthly, possession of such lands would vest in the Government only when the foregoing factors have been formally and strictly complied with. This Section enables the curtailment of aConstitutional right to property and can be resorted to only if the provisions and preconditions are punctiliously and meticulously adhered to, lest the vesting be struck down and set aside by the Court in its writ jurisdiction, on the application of the Taylor vs. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and several judgments of this Court which has followed this decisionion (4) sounds the death knell to the arguments put forward for the Respondent State, inasmuch as it allows the option to the appropriate Government to make the provisions of Section 5A inapplicable. Paraphrased differently, even where the urgency provisions contained in Section 17 are resorted to, ordinarily the provisions of Section 5A have to be adhered to, i.e. inviting and then deciding the Objections filed by the landowners. Significantly,(4) of Section 17 does not, as it very easily could have, exempt compliance with the publication of the Declaration under Section 6 and the hearing of parties preparatory to the passing of an Award under Sections 9 to 11 of the Act. There is, therefore, not even an iota of doubt that remains pertaining to the absolute necessity of the passing of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act. We are in no manner of doubt, and we reiterate, that the tender of the estimated compensation is the precondition, the sine qua non, enabling the Government to take possession of land under the foregoing subsections; and must be followed by the exercise of computation of compensation in a procedure corresponding to that in Section 11. We shall revert to the question of whether the constraints contained in Section 11A will also apply to acquisitions in which Section 17 has been resorted to.The plea before us from the Appellants is that the land should revert to them under Section 11A, since an Award under Section 11 has still not been made despite the passage of almost three decades from the date of the subject Notification. This Court has continuously held that once land has vested in the State, the question ofits possession in the erstwhile landowners is no longer available as an option to the State. This legal position was enunciated close to a half century ago in Avinash Sharma and has been subsequently reiterated in numerous judgments.The scenario before us depicts the carelessness and the callousness of the State, quite different from the situation in Satendra Prasad Jain and Avinash Sharma. The Appellants herein are being denied just and fair compensation for their land in proceedings which commenced in 1987, despite the directions of the High Court passed as early as in 1988 to pass an award within four months. The raisonbehind the introduction of Section 11A was for the landowners to have a remedy in the event of an award not being passed expeditiously. If Satendra Prasad Jain is interpreted to mean that Section 11A will not apply to any acquisition under the urgency provisions, landowners such as the Appellants before us will have no protection, even if they are not paid full compensation for their land for decades. This cannot be in keeping with the legislative intent behind this Section. Furthermore, keeping empirical evidence in sight, we make bold to opine that circumstances require this Court to reconsider its view that even if the stated public interest or cause has ceased to exist, any other cause can substitute it, especially where the urgency provisions have been invoked.25. We feel it imperative to distinguish between the setting aside of an acquisition and the reversion of possession to the erstwhile landowners. While the L.A. Act and the judgments discussed above do not allow for the latter, we are of the considered opinion that this does not necessarily imply that the former is also not an option. Both the abovementioned cases dealt with a factual situation in which the Government was attempting to set the acquisition of the land at naught so that they would not have to pay compensation to acquire it. Setting aside of the acquisition in those cases was tantamount to reverting the possession to the original owners. In this scenario, however, the two do not have to go hand in hand. In allowing the acquisition of land that the Government finds necessary to be set aside, we would not necessarily be holding that the land revert to the Appellants, as the alternative of permitting the Government to keep possession provided itthe land with a new Section 4 notification exists. This option, particularly in the present factual matrix, does the least violence to the intent and content of the L.A. Act, in that it upholds Section 11A even in cases of acquisition under Section 17 while preserving the requirement of Section 17 that the unencumbered possession of the land remain vested in the Government. It also protects the rights of the landowners, thus fulfilling the intent of Section 11A, while allowing the Government to acquire land in cases of emergencies without its title being challenged, which is the avowed intention of Section 17. Any other interpretation of the law would serve to protect only those landowners who had approached the Court to stop the Government from undoing an emergency acquisition, while leaving in the cold equally aggrieved landowners seeking to enforce their right to fair compensation for their land. Even equity demands that the party bearing the consequence of the delay in the Award ought not to be the innocent landowner, but the errant State.