Madhya Pradesh High Court
Laxmichand And Ors. vs Gram Panchayat Kararia Chauraha, ... on 10 January, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995MP166, 1994(0)MPLJ303, AIR 1995 MADHYA PRADESH 166, (1994) MPLJ 303
JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.
1. This is a letters patent appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal Rules, against the judgment and decree passed on 23-11-1993 in First Appeal No. 72 of 1991 by a learned Judge of this Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the suit land of the appellants cannot be acquired and the acquisition proceedings once dropped by the Land Acquisition Officer, for short, the LAO, vide order dt. 30-7-1973, could not be reopened at the instance of the Gram Panchayat for whom the land was acquired.
2. The notification for acquisition of the land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act'), was issued on 16-4-1969. During the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, the Gram Panchayat stated before the LAO that the Gram Panchayat has no-funds, therefore, the proceedings be dropped. On that, the LAO dropped the proceedings and ordered that the matter be referred for denotifying acquisition. After some time, Gram Panchayat made a prayer to the LAO that as the funds are now available, therefore, enquiry under Section 11 be concluded and the award be passed. On that, the LAO concluded the enquiry and made an award on 22-1-1975. The appellants, instead of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, instituted a civil suit on 31st of Jan. 1975, for declaration that the LAO, once having dropped the proceedings had no jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings by reviewing the same as no power of review vested in him under the Act, hence the award is without jurisdiction and it be declared that the land so proposed to be acquired now, cannot be acquired. The trial Court raised preliminary issues about the maintainability of the suit. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appellants-plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, holding that as prior to the dropping of the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act, the plaintiffs challenged the notifications of acquisition by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed and against the order of dismissal of writ, a special leave petition before the Supreme Court was also dismissed, therefore, in view of the dismissal of writ petition, the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned single Judge also dismissed the suit holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as where statutory rights and liabilities have been created and jurisdiction conferred upon the Special Courts for deciding the matter in controversy, such jurisdiction is exclusive and cannot concurrently be exercised by civil courts.
4. Shri V. G. Khot, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri H. D. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General are heard at the admission stage.
5. Learned counsel for appellants, placing reliance on'a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chhaganlal v. Land Acquisition Officer (1964 Jab LJ 730), contended that once the LAO makes an award, the LAO has no jurisdiction to review it, as the provisions of the Civil P. C. made applicable by virtue of Section 53 of the Act are not applicable to the enquiry under Section 11 of Act, the LAO being not a court, therefore, when once the LAO makes an award, it has no jurisdiction to make a fresh award.
6. After hearing counsel, we are of the opinion that this appeal need not be kept pending for final hearing as we are of the opinion that LAO acted against the mandatory provision of Section 11 of the Act as after receipt of statements of claims of persons interested, if any, the Collector or the LAO has no jurisdiction not to proceed with the enquiry; but has to conclude the enquiry for making an award under his hand, in accordance with Section 11 of the Act. The proceedings are merely of administrative nature and not judicial and the award in which the enquiry results is merely a decision, binding only on the Collector, as to what sum shall be tendered to the owner of the lands, and if a judicial ascertainment of the value is desired by the owner, he can obtain it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. The Collector or the LAO has no jurisdiction at his own instance or at the instance of any party, not to proceed with the enquiry or to say that the land notified for acquisition is released from acquisition. The power only vests in the State Government under Section 48 of the Act, which gives liberty to State Government to withdraw from the acquisition at any stage before the possession is taken, or the award is made in order to release the land from acquisition, which certainly cannot be challenged. But, after award, withdrawal is prohibited, whatever may be the circumstances, except when the proceedings are declared invalid by a Court's decree if Civil. Court; or order in writ jurisdiction.
7. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction vested in the LAO to drop the proceedings at whose instance the two notifications were issued to acquire the land. As the proceedings under the Act were taken on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, the Gram Panchayat has no power to withdraw from the acquisition as under Section 48 of the Act, it is the Government alone that can withdraw from the proceedings of acquisition before the possession is taken or before the award is made, by issuing a notification of releasing the land from acquisition. See, Secretary of State v. Qamar Ali (LI India Cases 501 : (AIR 1919 All 360).
8. Hence, on the prayer made by the Gram Panchayat for reviving and continuing the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, in our opinion, the LAO committed no illegality and, therefore, the award passed in accordance with Section 11 and the proceedings thereunder were not illegal and without jurisdiction. After passing the award and possession of the land has been taken, though, learned counsel submits that the possession of the part of the property has been taken over, possession of the land over which the constructions are standing has not been taken but, in our opinion, that will not make any difference as that was because of the order of injunction of Civil Court. A major portion of the area has already been taken over, the land having been vested absolutely free from all encumbrances in the State Government under Section 16 of the Act, the appellants/owners have lost title to the land; there is no provision in the Act by which the land statutorily vested in the Government can revert to the owner. See, Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. (AIR 1993 SC 2517).
9. In the result, this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.