NARAYAN PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of 2.428 hectares of land comprising Khasra No. 400/1 and 399/2 situated in Patan Tehsil of Jabalpur District was sought to be acquired for the purpose of establishing Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29-12-1989. Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was also simultaneously published. For the same purpose, some other plots of land were also acquired. According to the appellant, as regards other lands, emergency provision under Section 17 was invoked. The appellant contended that even though Section 17 was not invoked in respect of the appellants property, there was no inquiry as contemplated under Section 5A of the Act and, therefore, the whole proceedings initiated for acquisition of the appellants land are illegal and liable to be quashed.

(2.) The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4386/2000 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The appellant alleged in the Writ Petition that he had filed a civil suit registered as C.S. No. 2-A/91 before the Court of Civil Judge, Class I challenging Section 4(1) Notification and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act and the suit was held to be not maintainable and thereafter he filed the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge held that the Writ Petition filed in 2000 challenging Section 4(1) Notification dated 29-12-1989 was highly belated and hence declined to grant injunction. This judgment of the learned single Judge was challenged by the appellant before the Division Bench and the appellate Court also held that the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition was justified. This appeal is against the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No. 356/2000.

(3.) We heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The main contention urged by the Counsel for the appellant is that as regards the property of the appellant, Notification under Section 4(1) and Declaration under Section 6 were simultaneously published and as long as Section 17 was not invoked, the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Radhey Shyam Nigam and others, etc. etc., (1989) 1 SCC 591. It is true that some illegality has been committed as Section 5A inquiry was not conducted by the authorities before Section 6 Declaration was made. But it is important to note that Section 4(1) Notification and Section 6 Declaration were made as early as on 20-12-1989. The appellant challenged only the award notice issued on 30-7-1990 pursuant to the Notification under Section 4(1) by filing the suit in the year 1991. The Civil suit was dismissed for default on 15-10-1998 and it was restored to file on 4-1-1999. Meanwhile, the award was passed on 10-12-1991. After the restoration of the suit, the appellant moved for temporary injunction and the same was refused by the trial Court. The appellant thereafter filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, by his Order dated 23-6-2000 held that the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in State of Bihar vs. Dhirendra Kumar and others (1995) 4 SCC 229 and thereafter the appellant filed the Writ Petition.