I (2004) 7 Supreme Court Case 362 Meher Rusi Dala Vs. UOI & Ors

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 30-Reference under-Apportionment of share-By tenants- Property taken over by Central Government for war purposes-Notice to quit given to Defence Government-Owner filed writ petition for directions that the property be acquired or possession be handed back-Central Government agreed to acquire said property-Certain amount awarded as compensation-Central Government sought permission to withdraw from acquisition and to set aside the award, which was not granted-Subsequently, Central Government filed a writ petition for apportionment of its share-The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a reference under & 30-Correctness of- Held: In land acquisition proceedings Government cannot and does not acquire its own imerest.

 

The Interest which is acquired is interest of third parties-Hence, High Court erred in directing reference under S. 30. Section 18-Reference under-Period of limitation-Held: Where the claimant has notice of the acquisition proceedings the limitation period is that prescribed tender S. 18-Where there is no notice of acquisition proceedings, the starting point would be from the date of knowledge of such proceedings or accrual of rights, whichever is later. The appellants' property Was taken over by the respondent for war purposes. The appellants gave a notice to quit to the respondent. Subsequently, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for directions that the property be acquired or the possession be handed back. The respondent agreed to acquire the said property.

The respondent invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an award was passed. In that award a certain amount was fixed as compensation. The appellants applied that the amount of compensation be paid to them.

Subsequently, the respondent filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) seeking permission to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings and to set aside the award. The permission was not granted. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application before the SLAO for apportionment of its share under Section 30 of the Act This application was rejected as the respondent made no such claim in the land acquisition proceedings. But the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the SLAO to make a reference under Section 30 of the Act. Hence the appeal.

 

File: 
Date of Letter / Judgment: 
2004-05-05