Supreme Court - Daily Orders
District Collector,Nalgonda . vs Syeda Ishrah Sultana on 19 July, 2017
Bench: Arun Mishra, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).7884 OF 2012
DISTRICT COLLECTOR,NALGONDA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SYEDA ISHRAH SULTANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The land was acquired in the proceedings under Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act 1899,(1309 firstly) (in short 'the Act') notification which is para materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.11.1953. Ulti mately, an award was passed on 14.09.1957. Possession was taken over on 5.6.1959.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was sought before the District Judge and vide order dated 4.5.1970 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2.50 per sq. yard. On 22.8.1974 the respondents made a representation to the Government stating therein that they are willing to take back the land. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BALA PARVATHI Date: 2017.09.22 government addressed a letter dated 13.10.1974 to the 14:50:48 IST Reason:
Collector asking for report on proposal for withdrawal of the 2 notification and Collector vide letter dated 7.11.1974 informed that the land is required and can be retained for other public purpose.
On 11.2.1975 the government took a decision to retain the land and rejected the request of the respondents for re-conveyance of the land. Land was handed over to the Social Welfare Department for construction of Hostels for SC Girls in the year 1975. The respondents filed W.P. No. 5573 of 1975 seeking for mandamus for re-conveyance of the Act under the provisions of Section 54 A of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, (1317 firstly) 1907.
The High Court vide order dated 15.4.1977 dismissed the Writ Petition while leaving the petitioner to avail other remedies. In the year 1978, the original suit No. OS.No. 79/1978 was dismissed by the Learned Subordinate Judge. An appeal was preferred before the High Court in which the High Court called for enquiry report as to the nature of the land. The Trial Court submitted a report dated 22.11.1995 stating that the land was never used as Agricultural land or pastural land. Revenue papers also showed the land as Goathan and not agricultural land.
The High Court set aside the judgment and Decree and granted the relief of payment of market value of the land. Aggrieved thereby, the District Collector preferred LPA No. 33 of 1977 before the High Court. The same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the 3 appeal has been preferred in this Court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents though served. The High Court has relied upon the judgment of this court dated 19.11.2004 in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar.
Mr. V.V.S. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the decision relied upon by the High Court has been reversed by this Court. It is not necessary to utilise land for the same purpose for which it had been acquired, the land had been used for construction of girls hostel for SC girls. There was no reason for the High Court to direct the payment of the compensation on the basis of the market value. Compensation was paid at the time of acquisition of land and was enhanced on reference, which was sought.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that this Court has concluded in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Syed Akbar(supra) that once the land had been acquired, possession has been taken and award passed, it vests absolutely with the government free from all encumbrances, land acquired could be used for any other purpose and cannot be conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order. Government could withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.
It was also held by this Court that in case land had been 4 acquired for a particular purpose, it is not necessary that it should be used for that particular purpose. It can also be used for some other purpose also, mere letter of the Resident Engineer that unused land was no more required was held not enough to release land. The order passed by the High Court directing the unused land to be handed over was set aside by this Court.
This Court has laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Syed Akbar thus:
“14. From the position of law made clear in the aforementioned decisions, it follows that (1) under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land acquired vests in the Government absolutely free from all encumbrances; (2) the land acquired for a public purpose could be utilized for any other public purpose; and (3) the acquired land which is vested in the Government free from all encumbrances cannot be re-assigned or re-conveyed to the original owner merely on the basis of an executive order.
15. At the hearing, we specifically asked learned counsel for the respondent whether the Board's Standing Order 90(32) was issued under any particular statute, the learned counsel was not able to point out to any provision of law under which it was issued. He was not in a position to show that the said order bears any statutory force. Even otherwise, as per para 32 of the said order, the land acquired, no longer required for the public purpose for which it was acquired, could not be disposed of in favour of any person other than the citizen of India and that too without the sanction of the Government . If the land acquired for the public purpose is specifically relinquished, such land could be disposed of as stated in the said paragraph. If the land relinquished is likely to be again required for public purposes, it should be merely leased out for such term as may be considered desirable in each case. If the acquired land was an agricultural land at the time of acquisition, it should be disposed of inviting for sale in public auction by giving wide publicity in respect of sale. If at the time of sale, anybody puts forth his claim in respect of 5 any field either as an adjacent owner or as an original owner, the sale of that field should be stopped and his claim investigated and disposed of in the manner specified in sub- clauses (i) and
(iv) of Note (2) of the Board's order 90(32). If it is found that his claim is not proved, the field should be sold by public auction. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the part of the acquired land which remained unused was relinquished by the Government. A letter of Resident Engineer stated that the unused land was no more required cannot amount to relinquishment of the said land by the competent authority. In order to make a claim under para 32 of the said Board's Standing Order in the first place, it was necessary that the competent authority had subsequently relinquished the unused land. After such relinquishment of the land, the land had to be notified for sale in public auction. If at the time of sale of such land, the original owner made a claim, sale could be stopped and his claim could be investigated and thereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner specified under the said paragraph. Added to this, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought about by G.O.Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1998, the land for the public purpose shall be utilized for the same purpose for which it was acquired as far as possible and in case the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other public purpose as deemed fit. It appears this amendment was not brought to the notice of the High Court.
16. Chapter V of the Act deals with occupation of khalsa land and right of occupant. Under Section 54, procedure is prescribed for acquiring unoccupied land. This Section enables a person to submit a petition to Tehsildar if he is desirous of taking unoccupied land. On such application, the Tehsildar may in accordance with the rules made by the Government give permission in writing for occupation. Section 54-A indicates the procedure in respect of land acquired for the purpose of public benefit and which is no more required. It is clear from plain and clear language of the said Section that when an agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required, the patta thereof shall be made in the name of the person or his successor from whom such land was acquired provided he consents to refund the compensation originally paid to him. This Section does not say that the 6 agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required for the purpose for which it is acquired. This Section can be attracted only in a case where agricultural land acquired for public benefit is no longer required not necessarily for the specific purpose for which it was acquired. Added to this, that the land is no more required is a decision required to be made by the competent authority. As in the present case, mere letter of Resident Engineer that the unused land is no more required is not enough. When the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, the question of reconveying the land as claimed by the respondent could not be accepted in view of the clear position of law stated in the decisions of this Court aforementioned. Whether the unused remaining land out of the acquired land was sufficient or not for the purpose of construction of Mandal Revenue Office could not be decided by the High Court. It was for the competent authorities to decide about the same. The High Court, in our view, was not right in saying that the proposal to construct the Mandal Revenue Office in the unused land acquired was an after-thought. No material was placed on record to attribute any mala fides on the part of the authorities or to support the case that the proposal to build a Mandal Revenue Office was an after- thought.“ In view of the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order was passed to release the land and compensation had already been awarded. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, reference for enhancement was made. Thus, all over again, the respondents were not entitled for compensation on the basis of market value as the land could have been utilised for some other purposes than for the purpose for which it had been acquired as laid down by this court in the aforesaid decision. The land had been used for construction 7 of the Girls hostel for SC girls. Thus, it was used for another public purpose for which it could have been used.
Thus, the respondents were not entitled for any compensation.
The Judgment and decree passed by the Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit passed by the trial court is hereby restored. The appeal stands disposed of.
No costs.
....................J (ARUN MISHRA) ....................J MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI;
JULY 19, 2017 8 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.10 SECTION XII-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No. 7884/2012 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,NALGONDA . & ANR. Appellant(s) VERSUS SYEDA ISHRAH SULTANA & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 19-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR For Appellant(s) Mr. V.V.S. Rao, Sr.Adv Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.for M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)