Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Motilal And Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 8334 Of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-10-1995 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6232 of 1978)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-10-1995 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6232 of 1978)
Petitioner: Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Respondent: Motilal And Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 8334 Of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-10-1995 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6232 of 1978)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 16-10-1995 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6232 of 1978)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 21, 1997
Head Note:
LAND ACQUISITION
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4,6. Acquisation – Set-aside by High Court on the grounds that particular land was not notified – Mistake in notification rectified by corrigendum Declaration under section 6 properly made. Held that High Court was not justified in declaring that particular land was not notified for acquisation and in granting injunction, restraining the State from taking possession of the land. (para 3).
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 4,6. Acquisation – Set-aside by High Court on the grounds that particular land was not notified – Mistake in notification rectified by corrigendum Declaration under section 6 properly made. Held that High Court was not justified in declaring that particular land was not notified for acquisation and in granting injunction, restraining the State from taking possession of the land. (para 3).
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J
1 Leave granted.
2 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 The only ground on which the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondents challenging the attempt to
acquire their lands in Plot No. 2611 of Village Kashai was that
the said plot was not notified for acquisition and therefore, it
was not open to the State Government to deprive the appellants of
the said lands or to interfere with their possession. It is true
that while issuing notification under Section 4 on 2-6-1978 the
State Government committed a mistake in stating the name of the
village in which the said plot is situated. In the said notifica
tion it was described as a plot of Village Bankat whereas really
the said plot is situated in Village Kashai. Realising this
mistake the State Government had issued a corrigendum dated
27-11-1978 which was published in the U.P. Gazette on 16-1-1978
and thereby the said mistake was corrected by stating that what
was sought to be acquired under Section 4 notification was 0.91
acre of land of Plot No. 2611 of Village Kashai. It was because
of the negligence of the State Government that the said fact was
not brought to the notice of the High Court. However, in view of
this corrigendum it cannot be disputed that 0.91 acre of land
out of the said plot was notified for acquisition by the State
Government. The declaration made under Section 6 was also re
quired to be read accordingly. It was, therefore, not proper for
the High Court to declare that no part of Plot No. 2611 of Vil
lage Kashai was notified for acquisition and to grant an injunc
tion restraining the State from taking over possession of the
respondents’ lands. On this limited ground we allow this appeal,
set aside the order passed by the High Court and hold that the
State Government had notified 0.91 acre of land of Plot No. 2611
of Village Kashai for acquisition for the benefit of the appell
ant-Samiti. We, however, make it clear that as the only point
which was considered by the High Court, was whether the lands of
the respondents were notified for acquisition or not, it will be
open to the respondents to take any appropriate action on any
other ground, if it is available to them. As the respondents have
been dragged to this Court because of the negligence of the
State Government and the appellant-Samiti, the appellant is
directed to pay to the contesting respondents Rs 5000 by way of
cost of this appeal even though they have succeeded in this
appeal.
1 Leave granted.
2 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3 The only ground on which the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the respondents challenging the attempt to
acquire their lands in Plot No. 2611 of Village Kashai was that
the said plot was not notified for acquisition and therefore, it
was not open to the State Government to deprive the appellants of
the said lands or to interfere with their possession. It is true
that while issuing notification under Section 4 on 2-6-1978 the
State Government committed a mistake in stating the name of the
village in which the said plot is situated. In the said notifica
tion it was described as a plot of Village Bankat whereas really
the said plot is situated in Village Kashai. Realising this
mistake the State Government had issued a corrigendum dated
27-11-1978 which was published in the U.P. Gazette on 16-1-1978
and thereby the said mistake was corrected by stating that what
was sought to be acquired under Section 4 notification was 0.91
acre of land of Plot No. 2611 of Village Kashai. It was because
of the negligence of the State Government that the said fact was
not brought to the notice of the High Court. However, in view of
this corrigendum it cannot be disputed that 0.91 acre of land
out of the said plot was notified for acquisition by the State
Government. The declaration made under Section 6 was also re
quired to be read accordingly. It was, therefore, not proper for
the High Court to declare that no part of Plot No. 2611 of Vil
lage Kashai was notified for acquisition and to grant an injunc
tion restraining the State from taking over possession of the
respondents’ lands. On this limited ground we allow this appeal,
set aside the order passed by the High Court and hold that the
State Government had notified 0.91 acre of land of Plot No. 2611
of Village Kashai for acquisition for the benefit of the appell
ant-Samiti. We, however, make it clear that as the only point
which was considered by the High Court, was whether the lands of
the respondents were notified for acquisition or not, it will be
open to the respondents to take any appropriate action on any
other ground, if it is available to them. As the respondents have
been dragged to this Court because of the negligence of the
State Government and the appellant-Samiti, the appellant is
directed to pay to the contesting respondents Rs 5000 by way of
cost of this appeal even though they have succeeded in this
appeal.
