Case: State of Jharkhand &amp; Others Vs. M/s. K.N. Farms and Industries (P) Ltd

land passes only when the acquisition takes place in accordance with law and the learned Single Judge did not commit any error by directing the appellants to issue fresh notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. 3. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the Division Bench altogether ignored that the direction given by the learned Single Judge for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act and passing of an award was clearly beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the respondent. Shri Sharan emphasied that if the respondent was to file a writ petition in 2005 for issue of a direction to the appellants to initiate the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of which possession was handed over in 1960, the High Court was bound to dismiss the same only on the ground of unexplained delay of more than four decades and the learned Single Judge committed grave error by issuing a mandamus for which the respondent had not even made a prayer. Learned senior counsel argued that after having accepted the amount of compensation the respondent did not have the locus to press the writ petitions filed by it. He also pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by it, the respondent had received Rs. 1,48,683/- in LA Case No. 6/61-62 and Rs. 1,57,754/- in LA Case No. 5/63-64.4. Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent supported the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and argued that in the absence of any provision in the 1894 Act, the State Government could not acquire title of the land belonging to the respondent simply by executing an agreement. Learned senior counsel submitted that the appellants were very much conscious of the fact that possession of the land had been taken without acquiring the same in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act and that is the reason why they issued notification dated 9.12.1960 under Section 4 and declaration dated 4.4.1961 under Section 6. He further submitted that the respondent was compelled to file the writ petition because no award was passed in furtherance of the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1960. Still further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent had accepted the price of the land by reserving its rights to challenge the action of the appellants and the High Court did not commit any error by directing the appellants to acquire the land by following the procedure prescribed under the 1894 Act and pay compensation in terms of the award to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer keeping in view the prevailing market value. 5. We have considered the respective submissions. In our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was ex-facie erroneous and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave mistake by approving the same. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and pay compensation to the respondent in terms of the award to be passed by assessing the value of the acquired land was clearly beyond the scope of W.P. No. 1546 of 2005, a reading of which leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent had not made a grievance that agreement dated 28.2.1960 was ultra vires the provisions of the 1894 Act or that even though possession of a substantial portion of the land specified in the agreement had been handed over on 31.3.1960, the State Government was under a legal obligation to initiate the acquisition proceedings and pay compensation under the 1894 Act. 6. The case set up by the respondent was that even though LRDC had taken possession of the land in furtherance of the agreement, the concerned authority had not paid compensation despite repeated representations and that it was entitled to receive the amount with interest for the period of 45 years. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge did not notice the pleadings of the writ petition and decided the matter by assuming that the respondent was aggrieved by the inaction of the competent authority to initiate the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and pay compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, who was bound to take into consideration the prevailing market value.7. We have now no doubt that if the learned Single Judge had taken the trouble of going through the pleadings of the case, he would not have issued a mandamus for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6, passing of award and payment of compensation to the respondent and that too by overlooking the fact that the respondent had moved the High Court after 45 years of the execution of agreement dated 28.2.1960. The learned Single Judge, who passed order in Civil Review No. 23 of 2008 also committed the same error and passed order dated 24.11.2010 without even adverting to the grievance made by the respondent in the first writ petition. 8. The Division Bench of the High Court did not take cognizance of the grounds on which the appellants had questioned the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1546 of 2005 and confirmed the order passed by him by erroneously assuming that it was a case of abject failure of the concerned authorities to acquire the land in accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act. 9. Another grave error committed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is that the learned Judges completely overlooked the settled law that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not entertain belated claims – State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, (1964) 6 SCR 261 : AIR 1964 SC 1006 and M/s Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]5. We have considered the respective submissions. In our view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge waserroneous and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave mistake by approving the same. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to the appellants to issue notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and pay compensation to the respondent in terms of the award to be passed by assessing the value of the acquired land was clearly beyond the scope of W.P. No. 1546 of 2005, a reading of which leaves no manner of doubt that the respondent had not made a grievance that agreement dated 28.2.1960 was ultra vires the provisions of the 1894 Act or that even though possession of a substantial portion of the land specified in the agreement had been handed over on 31.3.1960, the State Government was under a legal obligation to initiate the acquisition proceedings and pay compensation under the 1894the learned Single Judge did not notice the pleadings of the writ petition and decided the matter by assuming that the respondent was aggrieved by the inaction of the competent authority to initiate the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act and pay compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, who was bound to take into consideration the prevailing market value.7. We have now no doubt that if the learned Single Judge had taken the trouble of going through the pleadings of the case, he would not have issued a mandamus for issue of notifications under Sections 4 and 6, passing of award and payment of compensation to the respondent and that too by overlooking the fact that the respondent had moved the High Court after 45 years of the execution of agreement dated 28.2.1960. The learned Single Judge, who passed order in Civil Review No. 23 of 2008 also committed the same error and passed order dated 24.11.2010 without even adverting to the grievance made by the respondent in the first writ petition.Another grave error committed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court is that the learned Judges completely overlooked the settled law that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not entertain belated claims – State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, (1964) 6 SCR 261  : AIR 1964 SC 1006  and M/s Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110.