K M JAFAR ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Writ petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for and quash G.O.Ms. No. 59 dated 3.4.1976 and published in the gazette of Pondicherry dated 13.4.1976 and the Notification bearing No. 36/73 published in the Gazette of Pondicherry dated 15.1.1974 under S. 6 and 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 respectively in so far as the same relate to the Petitioners land measuring 1.56.00 Hectares bearing Resurvey No. 7/2 (Old Survey Nos. 50 & 56) in Muthialpet, Pondicherry taluk on the file of the third respondent.

(2.) HAVING regard to the nature of the controversy placed before me, reference to a few salient facts of the matter alone would do. The acquisition in question of an extent of 6.10.30 Hectares of land is for the public purpose of implementing various housing schemes under the Land Acquisition and Development Schemes in the State of Pondicherry. The petitioner is the owner of the lands in question measuring about 1.56.00 in resurvey No. 7/2 (Old Survey Nos. 50 and 56) in Muthialpet, Pondicherry taluk, Pondicherry State. Notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to be issued and published in Gazette No. 3 Pondicherry Gazette dated 15.1.1974 S. 5(A) enquiry has been conducted into the objections filed and the declaration under S. 6 of the Act was issued under the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 59, dated 3rd April 1976. Notice of Award appears to have been issued under S. 9(3) and 10 of the Act and the enquiry was fixed to be held on 24.5.1976. At this stage, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2065 of 1976. Though the Writ Petition was entertained and interim order of stay was granted, by an order of 15.12.1978, the said Writ Petition was ultimately dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.A. No. 482 of 1979 and this also came to be dismissed ultimately on 7.1.1980. Since according to the petitioner, nothing has happened thereafter, even after a lapse of 4 years one month and 23 days, the petitioner was obliged to again file the present Writ Petition for the relief referred to supra.

(3.) THE averments contained in paragraph 10 of the Counter-affidavit which has been extracted supra, in my view do not constitute sufficient explanation or cause for the delay of more than 4 years. As the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out, the delay in this case is not in completing the Award enquiry and passing the award but even in taking any tangible action by atleast issuing a notice before the petitioner moved this Court by means of the present Writ petition even for more than 4 years. THE general claim that large track of land including the petitioners lands were proposed to be acquired and it involved verification of claims of several persons interested, does not appear to be either convincing or meriting acceptance. THE total extent sought to be acquired was only 6.10.1930 Hectares and the number of persons interested does not also appear to be innumerable and even that apart, that is no ground to justify even a delay in the issue of a notice for re-commencing the enquiry, leave alone the completion in time or expeditiously passing the Award. Consequently, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed applying the ratio of the Division Bench referred to supra. THE decision relied upon for the respondent in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor Delhi AIR 1974 S.C. 2077 does not really govern a situation like the one on hand apart from the fact that the delay complained of in the present case is not covered by any orders of stay. THE plea that the petitioner would be suitably compensated by way of compensation in the shape of the market value is no answer in a case like this, where the lapse of time was such that the market value that may be paid with reference to the notification under S. 4(1) may not really represent the real or even the probable market value but would be more illusory. THE observations of the Apex Court, relied upon, were made in the context of a challenge to the Constitutional validity of S. 23 of the Act and the same cannot be applied to the case on hand. That apart, the Supreme Court in that case declined to interfere in the matter on the view that the learned Single Judge and the Divisional Bench of the High Court were of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the Government in completing the acquisition proceedings and therefore THEir Lordships of the Supreme Court are not persuaded to come to a different conclusion. THEre is no analogy in any respect of the said case to the case on hand before me for consideration. THE objection raised on the principle of res-judicata deserves mention only to be rejected. THE cause of action for the present Writ Petition is mainly the delay occasioned after the disposal of the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal and not with reference to anything that occurred prior to the dismissal of the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner on earlier occasions. THE principle of res-judicata has no application in such a situation and consequently, the same is overruled. For all the reasons stated above, the S. 6 declaration is quashed as prayed for in so far as it relates to the lands of petitioners and the Writ petition shall stand allowed. But, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.