RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ANR. v. STTE OF M.P. AND ORS

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 512

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.N. KHARE, ASHOK BHAN, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI

Judgment text

RAJ KUMAR JOHRI AND ANR. .... ___,~ v. STATE OF M. P. AND ORS. MARCH 7, 2002 [V. N. KHARE, ASHOK BHAN AND D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. ] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 4(1), 6, II and 28-A-Notification ul )... s. 4(1)-Deemed date given to by Supreme Court-Effect of-Acquisition of land-Notification uls, 4 issued on 21. 8,. 1985 and declaration uls. 6 made on - f the notification under Section 4 and the improvements made by the authorities ~/ between 2nd August, 1985 (the original date of issuance of notification) and the lst January, 1988 {the deemed date of notification). The appellants ~ entitlement to the increase in the potential value of the land was limited to 25% only. The development authority was held entitled to take possession of the land under Section 16 subject to redetermination of the amount of compensation and not subject to the giving of an award in terms of Section 11/llA. This Court in Mancheri Puthusseri Ahmed v.

Kuthir Avattam Estate Receiver, [1996] 6 SCC 185 has held that whenever a deemed date is given ~ by creating a legal fiction than the Court is required to ascertain for what purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, the Court is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental or inevitable corollaries to give effect to the fiction. While construing the fiction it is not open to the Court to extend the same beyond the. purpose for which it was created. It cannot also be extended by importing another fiction. The deemed date to the notification under Section 4 was given by creating a legal fiction ~ for giving enhanced compensation and it has to be limited to that only. It cannot be extended beyond it leading to the issuance of fresh declaration under Section 6 or giving a fresh award under Section 11.

Due to the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court and due to the fact that the proceedings were adjourned before the Land Acquisition Officer nearly 40 times the amount ofcompensation could not be redetermined at an early date. It was redetermined on I st January, 1998 and the possession ~w~taken by the authorities on 9th March, 1998. - Shri Ra~ then argued that the earlier judgment rendered by this Court being against the statutory provisions would be deemed to be a non-est \H judgment and therefore not binding on the parties. That if it be deemed that .. RAJ KUMARJOHRI v. STATE 517 this Court decided th• earlier case in exercise of its extra-ordinary power . ,__.. _, r;·_ under Article 142 of the Constitution even then it is bad in law because the Court cannot exercise its power under Article 142 in the face of express statutory provisions. That the appellants could not be deprived oftheir property without giving market price for the same.

For this he made reference to a number of judgments including the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. , [1998] 4 SCC 409. In Particular reference was made to paras 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55 & 56 of the said judgment. The submission has no force. In the earlier judgment ... the Court had upheld the acquisition proceedings but in order to give more ~ compensation to the landowners in that case a deemed date was given to the notification under Section 4. So far as the upholding of the acquisition '• proceedings is concerned it cannot be held that it is against any statutory provision. That part of the judgment cannot be touched. In any case it is too late to challenge the upholding of the acquisition proceedings in an appeal before a bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction. The other part is of giving deemed date to the notification under Section 4 and limiting the benefits arising therefrom.

The same is for the benefit of the claimants-appellants. It would not be in the interest of the appellants to get it set aside. Nor would we like to do it. ~\ For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the claimants and dismiss the same. The cross appeal filed by the development authority lacks merit and is also dismissed. Counsel for the appellants then contended that the claimants have not been given any compensation till date. Ifthat be so, the development authority is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants within one month of the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. It was brought to our notice that the claimants have already filed a ~ reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for claiming enhanced compensation. If that be so, the reference petition be decided in accordance with law keeping in view the directions given by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 14th November, 1991.

There will be no order as to costs. ' All the l. A. 's are disposed of as infructuous. / R. P. Appeals dismissed.