Full Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8791-8818 of 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425-36452 of
2009]
RELIANCE POWER LTD. …….. APPELLANT
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.36616-36628 of 2009]
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.171-172 of 2010]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.1937 of 2010]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.29549 of 2010]
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35239-35242 of 2012]
Page 2
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted. The interlocutory applications are allowed.
2. These appeals arise out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of U.P. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short ‘the Act’]. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the two notifications Dated 25th June, 2004 and 20th February, 2007 underSection 6 of the Act and partly quashed notifications under Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 to the extent of invocation of urgency clause with liberty to the State to proceed with the hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act and with further direction as to refund of compensation already received by the land owners. The operative part of the order is as follows:-
3. Though most of the appeals have been preferred by M/s Reliance Power Ltd. [formerly known as Reliance Energy Generation Ltd.] [for short ‘the Company’] at whose instance the land in question was sought to be acquired, against part quashing of acquisition proceedings, some of the land owners have also appealed to this Court with the grievance that having held that the proceedings were initiated on the grounds of illegality and fraud, the High Court ought to have quashed the acquisition proceedings in entirety.
4. The appeals were heard and judgment reserved on 6th August, 2014. But before pronouncement of the judgment, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Company seeking to surrender all rights in respect of the land covered by the above notifications dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006, stating that on account of the difficulty in securing domestic natural gas to run the plant which was sought to be set up, it will not be feasible for the Company to utilise the land for the purpose for which the same was Page 5 acquired.
5. While we note the submissions made on behalf of the Company, we find that the impugned judgment was rendered on 4th December, 2009, and no stay has been granted by this Court. The State has not chosen to challenge the findings recorded by the High Court. On this ground itself, proceedings lapse as limitation for issuing notifications under Section 6 of the Act or for making award in respect of proceedings initiated vide notifications of Section 4 of the Act dated 11th February, 2004 and 29th August, 2006 has expired.
6. In these circumstances no further question survives for consideration. We need not go into the question raised on behalf of the tenure holders that once the proceedings were vitiated by fraud and colourable exercise of power, such proceedings could not be revived in view of law laid down in Vyalikaval Housebuilding Coop. Society vs. V. Chandrappa & Ors.1, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.2. The direction requiring the Collector to proceed with the enquiry
Page 6 under Section 5A of the Act has been rendered infructuous. Further direction that the tenure holders who had received any amount from the Company and wanted to file objections were liable to refund the same and those who had no objection could seek exemption from refund failing which the Collector could recover the amount paid by the Company as arrears of land revenue also does not survive. Since notification under Section 6 of the Act could no longer be issued at this stage, the question of any tenure holder having or not having objection does not survive for consideration as enquiry under Section 5A of the Act could serve no purpose when notification under Section 6 of the Act can no longer be issued. Direction of the High Court could, thus, no longer be given effect to.
7. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous without prejudice to any other remedy for the Company to recover the amount, if any, paid and for tenure holders to claim damages, if any, from the Company in any other proceedings.
8. WRIT PETITION (C) NO.304 OF 2010 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal Nos…......... of 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.36425- Page 7 36452 of 2009 etc.), this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. …………………………….J. [ T.S. THAKUR ] ……………………………..J. [ C. NAGAPPAN ] ………………………………..J. NEW DELHI [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ] September 16, 2014 Page 8 ITEM NO.1E-For Judgment COURT NO.14
SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36425- 36452/2009 RELIANCE POWER LTD.FORM.R.E.GENERAN.LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABU SINGH & ORS.ETC.ETC. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) No. 36616-36628/2009 SLP(C) No. 171-172/2010 W.P.(C) No. 304/2010 SLP(C) No. 1937/2010 SLP(C) No. 29549/2010 SLP(C) No. 35239-35242/2012 Date: 16/09/2014 These petitions were called on for JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s) Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv. Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. A.V. Balan, Adv. Mr. V.S. Lakshmi, Adv. Dr. Surat Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale,Adv. Mr. Rishi Malhotra,Adv. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,Adv. Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra,Adv. Page 9 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan and His Lordship. Leave granted. The appeals are disposed of as infructuous in terms of the signed order. Writ Petition (C) No.304 of 2010 is also disposed of in terms of the signed order. (VINOD KUMAR) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)