Case: Reliance Petroleum Vs. Zaverchand Popatlal Sumaria

4. By the judgment under appeal the High Court has quashed (a) the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act thereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 15.2.1993, (b) the declaration issued under section 6 of the Act dated 18.5.1994 and (c) the award passed on 12.12.94 insofar as they related to the lands of the writ petitioners and other objectors (totalling 89 in number) belonging to villages Padana and Meghpur.5. At the instance of the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.27230/95 (hereinafter called the "appellant company") machinery under Land Acquisition Act was put into operation under Part VII of the Act for acquiring approximately an extent of 2,500 acres of lands situated in the villages of Moti Chavdi, Padana, Meghpur, Lalpur, Sikka and Gagva. Before the High Court the lands measuring about 877 acres belonging to 89 individuals situated in Padana and Meghpur was the subject matter. It appears in between (namely when the matter was pending before the High Court and the matter was heard and concluded in this Court) the appellant Company was able to settle the matter with 70 individuals, leaving 19 individuals holding an extent of 241.34 acres for settling the issue. In other words we are concerned now with the lands situated in Padana and Meghpur villages belonging to 19 individuals measuring 241.34 acres only.6. Before the High Court the writ petitioners (namely Respondents 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.27230/95) raised only three contentions. They were that there wasof the provisions of Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules. 1969, that there wasof provisions of Rule 4 of the said Rules and that there was no hearing as required was afforded and thereby there was violation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. The learned Judges impressed by the arguments of the writ petitioners accepted the above three contentions and consequently quashed the notification under section 4(1). declaration under section 6 and awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act as mentioned above at the outset.7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court these appeals by special leave have been preferred.

Reasoning:
13. Taking note of all these facts we have come to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition and also in exercising the discretionary jurisdiction to quash the 4(1) notifications section 6 declaration and award made under the Land Acquisition Act.14. In the view we take on the facts of the case, we do not think it necessary to discuss the question of law and to quote the cases cited by counsel on both sides.15. Notwithstanding the above, we feel that ends of justice would be met if we direct the appellant company to pay the enhanced compensation at the rate/rates paid to others who have accepted the same and withdrew from prosecuting the case in this Court, with interest @ 12% from 25.10.1994. If an affidavit is filed on behalf of the 19 persons accepting the above compensation in full quit within 8 weeks from this date, the same should be paid by the Company within 4 weeks from the date of filing of such affidavit. If the affidavit accepting the above compensation is not filed as above, then it will be taken that the 19 individuals are not accepting the compensation suggested, but desire to agitate the same in accordance with law.