1993 (9) TMI 373 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns Decision, Orders Award Issuance; Possession Leads to Land Vesting in Government.

Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the Allahabad HC's decision, and directed the first and second respondents to make and publish an award within a ... - Issues:1. Validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Application of Section 11-A regarding the time limit for making an award.3. Interpretation of Section 17(1) in cases of urgency.4. Compliance with Section 17(3-A) regarding compensation payment.Analysis:The judgment by the Supreme Court addressed the validity of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case involved the acquisition of land for the development of an Agriculture Market Produce Samiti in Uttar Pradesh. The appellants challenged the acquisition proceedings, which were initially upheld by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court noted the urgency of the public purpose for acquisition and the subsequent possession of the land by the government.Regarding the application of Section 11-A, the High Court had dismissed the writ petition stating that the proceedings had lapsed as more than two years had elapsed since the notification under Section 4. The Court emphasized that the necessity of making an award within two years could not be dispensed with merely by taking possession under Section 17(1).In interpreting Section 17(1) in cases of urgency, the Court highlighted that when possession is taken under this provision, the land vests in the Government, and Section 11-A does not apply as the land has already vested. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that possession under Section 17(1) results in the land vesting in the Government.Regarding compliance with Section 17(3-A) on compensation payment, the Court noted that even though the required compensation was not paid before possession was taken, it did not render the possession illegal or prevent the vesting of the land in the Government. The Court rejected the argument that compensation could be awarded under Section 5, stating that Section 5 pertains to damage during surveying and is not applicable in this case.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and directing the first and second respondents to make and publish an award within a specified timeframe. The third respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellants.