Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hindustan Copper Ltd. vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 19 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)MPHT93
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
ORDER Arun Mishra, J.
1. Petitioner M/s. Hindustan Copper Ltd., is a Govt. of India enterprise registered under Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner/Company takes up extraction work of copper ore in various parts of the country depending on its availability. Petitioner/Company in order to undertaking mining operations in Malanjkhand Copper Project, moved the State Government for acquisition. There are about 1800 workers working in the copper project at Malanjkhand. Petitioner/Company required 5000 acres of land as per the lay out that was chalked out with the help of Russian Advisors. Proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the land as per the request made by the petitioner in letter Annexure A dated 3rd January, 1978. Notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 12-4-78 published in Official Gazette on 21 st April, 1978. Enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with as the provision under Section 17(1) was invoked; notification under Section 6 was issued on 24th April, 1978. Possession was taken as per Panchnama Annexure E on 3-7-78; the fact also finds place in Annexure B. Possession receipt is also annexed alongwith Annexure E. The Land Acquisition Officer dropped the proceedings on ground that award could not be passed within two years, hence the proceedings for acquisition stands lapsed. Petitioner challenges the orders (Annexures F and G) on the ground that once possession was taken vesting is complete, Section 11A would not cover the cases where lands have already vested in exercise of powers under Section 17(1) of the Act.
2. Return has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in which it has not been disputed that possession was taken on 3-7-78 as per Annexure E. It is contended that on account of lapse on part of the Company to deposit 80% of the estimated amount of the land for payment with the Land Acquisition Officer, hence, award could not he made within two years, therefore, the petitioner/Company could not take the advantage of laches; acquisition proceedings have now lapsed and no further action can be taken in Case No. 1-A/82/77-78.
3. The only question for consideration is whether proceedings for acquisition stand lapsed and Section 11A is attracted when possession has been taken invoking Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. The question is squarely answered by the decision of the Apex Court in Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1993) 4 SCC 369. The Apex Court has laid down that Section 11A has no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have already vested in the Government. The Apex Court held that:--
"15. Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon the taking of possession the land vests in the Government, that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provision of Section 11A arc intended to benefit the land owner and ensure that the award is made within a period of two years from the date of the Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the land has still not vested in the Government and its title remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11A, lapse. When Section 17(1) is applied by reason of urgency, Government takes possession of the land prior to the making of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is divested of the title to the land which is vested in the Government. Section 17(1) states so in unmistakable terms. Clearly, Section 11A can have no application to cases of acquisitions under Section 17 because the land have already vested in the Government and there is no provision in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner."
5. The effect of non-payment of 80% of the estimated compensation has also been considered by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Paras 16 and 17 held that:--
"16. Further, Section 17(3-A) postulates that the owner will be offered an amount equivalent to 80% of the estimated compensation for the land before the Government takes possession of it under Section 17(1). Section 11A cannot be so construed as to leave the Government holding title to the land without the obligation to determine compensation, make an award and pay to the owner the difference between the amount of the award and the amount of 80 per cent of the estimated compensation."
"17. In the instant case, even that 80 per cent of the estimated compensation was not paid to the appellants although Section 17(3-A) required that it should have been paid before possession of the said land was taken but that does not mean that the possession was taken illegally or that the said land did not thereupon vest in the first respondent. It is, at any rate, not open to the third respondent, who, as the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated June 27th, 1990 shows, failed to make the necessary monies available and who has been in occupation of the said land ever since its possession was taken, to urge that the possession was taken illegally and that, therefore, the said land has not vested in the first respondent and the first respondent is under no obligation to make an award."
6. Thus, in my opinion, it is clear that proceedings cannot lapse provision of Section 17(1) of the Act has been invoked and possession has been taken.
7. Resultantly the orders (Annexures F and G) are quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Security, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. The proceedings be completed as far as possible within four months from today.