Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.4(1), 6 – In 1943, Govt. of India requisitioned 4 acres and 34 gunthas of land bearing Survey No. 120/2 (Part) of Village Malad, Mumbai – In 1949, 2.68 acres land out of the aforesaid land was de-requisitioned – In 1975, notification was issued u/s.4(1) acquiring the said extent of 8623 sq.m. – Declaration u/s.6 issued in 1978 – Draft Award passed in 1986 – Challenge made in the present case in the year 2002 – In a proceeding concerning other lands covered by the same s. 4 notification, Supreme Court in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., allowed appeal by land owner – In view thereof, present case referred to larger Bench that delay and laches have to be ignored – Held: On facts, question of delay and laches need not be answered as s.4 notification that was struck down in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case is the very notification in the facts of this case wherein the entire acquisition proceedings were quashed – Unable to agree with appellant’s contention that the s.4 notification not only deals with various other lands in Village Malad but also deals with a land in a different village altogether viz., Village Wadhawan, and that Supreme Court’s judgment did not go to the extent of declaring the acquisition bad so far as village Wadhawan is concerned – So far as village Malad is concerned where the land in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case was land that was adjacent to the present land, the very s.4 notification was struck down and declared null and void – This being the case, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the present appeal in favour of appellant, as this would amount to a discrimination between two persons who are otherwise similarly placed – Further, Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case did not deal with newspaper publication at all – It only dealt with the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette and public notices of the substance of the notification being given in the locality in which the lands are acquired, both of which were held to be cumulative and mandatory requirements of s.4 – Given the fact that this is a Defence project in which possession has been with the Union since 1942, the same facts would obtain as in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case in which relief was granted – Therefore, present case cannot lead to a different conclusion on similar facts – Defence of India Rules, 1939 – r. 75A – Constitution of India – Arts. 141 and 142.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Though this Court has, by its order dated 27.03.2018, referred this case to a larger Bench in view of the decision in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case that delay and laches have to be ignored, the Court is of the view that on the facts of this case, the Court need not answer this question. This is for the reason that the Section 4 notification that was struck down in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case is the very notification in the facts of this case. In Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case, this Court quashed the entire acquisition proceedings stating that they be declared as null and void. Unable to agree with the contention that the Section 4 notification not only deals with various other lands in Village Malad but also deals with a land in a different village altogether viz., Village Wadhawan, and that this Court’s judgment did not go to the extent of declaring the acquisition bad so far as village Wadhawan is concerned. So far as village Malad is concerned, where the land in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case was land that was adjacent to the present land, the very Section 4 notification has been struck down and declared null and void, and this being the case, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the present appeal in favour of the Union of India, as this would amount to a discrimination between two persons who are otherwise similarly placed. [Para 8][772 G-H; 773 A-D]
1.2 Even though newspaper publication of the Section 4 notification came in by amendment for the first time in 1984, the requirement of public notice where the land is situate in addition to publication in the Official Gazette, was always there from the inception. Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case did not deal with newspaper publication at all. It only dealt with the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette and public notices of the substance of the notification being given in the locality in which the lands are acquired, both of which were held to be cumulative and mandatory requirements of Section 4. In Indore Development Authority’s case, the Constitution Bench is seized of several questions, all of which pertain to the construction of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Thus, it is wholly unnecessary to adjourn this case in order to await the judgment of the Constitution Bench in this case. Given the fact that this is a Defence project in which possession has been with the Union since 1942, the same facts would obtain as in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala’s case in which relief has been granted to Kulsum R. Nadiadwala. This case, therefore, cannot lead to a different conclusion on similar facts. It is important to make a distinction between a declaration of law which would bind other future cases under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and an order made in the facts of the case which may equally be made to do substantial justice on the facts of a given case, sometimes under Article 142. In Kulsum R. Nadiadwala, though the appellant’s claim was restricted to only 50 per cent of the land in question, so far as the other 50 per cent is concerned, the judgment itself makes a reference to the fact that the appellants are legal heirs of one deceased Ismail Nadiadwala and that there was another claimant whose name was Ibrahim Nadiadwala to whom, presumably, 50 per cent of the property went. Since only Ismail Nadiadwala’s heirs were prosecuting the appeal, this direction appears to have been made. [Paras 10-15][774 B-H; 775 A-B]
Kulsum R. Nadiadwala v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 348 : 2012 (7) SCALE 212 – relied on. Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Others Etc. [2019] 14 SCALE 470 – referred to.
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.