Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent Nos.1 to 3 purchased land in question from the predecessor-in-title – With respect to the land in question, s.4 Notification had been issued – The predecessorin-title had submitted their objections u/s.5A which were pending – They also challenged s.4 and s.6 notifications by filing writ petition before the High Court – Single Judge dismissed writ petition – LPA is pending in High Court – Thereafter, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed instant writ petition – Single Judge dismissed writ petition on the ground of limitation – Division Bench by impugned order allowed the appeal and held that respondent nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to same relief which was granted to their predecessor-in-title – On appeal, held: High Court did not at all note and/or consider that with respect to the very acquisition and the notifications u/ss.4 and 6, writ appeal filed by predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos. 1 to
3 was pending before High Court – Without noticing the same, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Judge – Once the very acquisition and the notifications u/ss.4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting orders, High Court, instead of deciding the appeal separately ought to have ensured that all the appeals with respect to the same acquisition, where the notifications were challenged, are heard together – That was not done in the instant case – Therefore, matter remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the writ appeal of respondent nos.1 to 3 and also writ appeal filed by their predecessor-in-title.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Division Bench of High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has not at all noted and/or considered that with respect to the very acquisition and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 dated 12.07.1994 and 26.05.1995 respectively, Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009 filed by the predecessor-in-title of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 i.e., Gajanand Mali is pending before the High Court. Without noticing the same, the High Court has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Single Judge. [Para 3][548-E-F]
2. Once the very acquisition and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were the subject matter of other proceedings pending before the High Court, in order to avoid any further conflicting orders and even otherwise on the basis of proprietary the High Court, instead of deciding the present appeal separately ought to have ensured that all the appeals with respect to the same acquisition, where the notifications were challenged, are heard together. That has not been done in the instant case. [Para 4][548-G-H]
3. Hence on the aforesaid short ground alone, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court to decide the present appeal being Writ Appeal No. 392 of 2009 alongwith Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2009 preferred by the Gajanand Mali and others. [Para 5][549-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.