SLP (Civil) Nos. 21780 of 2008, 12921 of 2010 and 4994 of 2011. Case: The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary and Ors. Vs Gurkirpal Singh. Supreme Court

Case NumberSLP (Civil) Nos. 21780 of 2008, 12921 of 2010 and 4994 of 2011
Party NameThe Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary and Ors. Vs Gurkirpal Singh
CounselFor Appellant: Sanchar Anand, Kuldip Singh and Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Advs. and For Respondents: Shikha Roy, Prahlad Kumar, Nishtha Chawla, S.K. Sabharwal, Narender Singh Yadav, P. Nanda Aryan and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs.
JudgesB.S. Chauhan and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
IssueLand Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 16, 18, 48
Citation2013 (viii) AD 557 (S.C.), 2013 (10) SCALE 49
Judgement DateAugust 05, 2013
CourtSupreme Court

Judgment:

B.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. The first petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No. 10511 of 2007 by which the notification dated 23.2.2007 de-notifying the land in exercise of the power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been exercised by the State and the said order has been quashed.

  2. The subsequent two petitions have been disposed of by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in terms of the judgment and order passed by the said High Court in first petition.

  3. Land was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 8.9.1994. Section 6 declaration was made on 13.6.1995 and the Award was made on 7.7.1997. As the award amount was not paid, the "person interested" approached the High Court by filing writ petitions wherein directions were issued to release the amount of compensation. Subsequently, references under Section 18 of the Act were filed. Some of the references were decided and in the Execution Court an objection was filed by the State authorities that the land was no longer required for the purpose it was sought to be acquired for, i.e., establishment of court complex as it was to be established at a different place. Therefore, the execution proceedings were dropped and certain orders were passed. Subsequently, State authorities denotified the land so acquired issuing a notification dated 23.2.2007 under Section 48 of the Act.

  4. We have heard the matter at length and also summoned the learned Land Acquisition Collector, Dasuya alongwith the original record. The record was produced before us.

  5. It is a settled legal proposition that once the possession of the land is taken by the State under Section 16 of the Act, land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The State loses its power to de-notify the same under Section 48 of the Act.

  6. In the instant case, the only question arose as to whether the possession had been taken or not. The High Court after examining the facts/record of the case came to the conclusion that the possession had been taken on 10.7.1997. Mutation had also been made, showing the land use as for establishment of court complex, Dasuya. Entries in Rapat Roznamcha dated 10.7.1997 corroborate the same.

  7. We have examined the original record ourselves. There is an office order issued by the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition...

To continue reading

Request your trial