Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JAL NIGAM CENTRAL STORES DIVISION, U.P. versus SURESHA NAND JUYAL@ MUSA RAM (DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Decided
14 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 1128 · 1997 INSC 270
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 224 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 1128, margin F

Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act) was published on May 7, 1986. The notice under Section 5-A was issued and the objections filed on December 17, 1986 were over-ruled after due consideration. Declaration under Section 6 was published on August 25, 1987. After conducting of enquiry, the award came to be made on December 17, 1988. The symbolic possession was taken on the said date. The respondents filed the writ petition on August 19, 1989. The High Court allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated August 31, 1995 in W.P. No. 3354/1988. The question is : whether the procedure followed by the Land Acquisition Officer was vitiated by any error manifest on the face of the record warranting interference by the High Court? Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the respondent/tenant has not been given any opportunity at the enquiry under Section 5-A. The land is the only source of livelihood and scheme was temporary. In view of the long lapse of time the purpose of the acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act no longer survived. Therefore, it does not serve any purpose. Counter affidavit filed in the High Court by the respondents shows that pursuant to the notice under Rule 30 of the Land Acquisition Rules, the respondents had filed the objections and it is stated therein as under :

pp. 1128–1129, margin G

"The concerned farmers were issued notices under section 5-A under the Land Acquisition Act and Rule 30 giving 30 days time for raising objections on 2.9.1986, concerned farmer Shri Mussa alia Swesha Nanda objected which was taken on

p. 1129, margin D

record."

p. 1129, margin E

Obviously, after consideration of all the objections and rejection thereof, declaration under Section 6 was published. As stated earlier, the award was made and symbolic possession was taken on December 17, 1988. Under the circumstances, the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. After the proceedings had become final, the writ petition came to be filed on May 19, 1989. The mere fact that due to lapse to time no action was taken after the filing of the writ petition, does not give ground for interference. The further fact that public purpose must have been served by constructing the quarters for the officers elsewhere, is without any substance. The mere fact that on account of the pending litigation, no construction was made, is no ground to say that notification under section 4(1) was vitiated by any error of law; equally, increase in the prices of the lands is no ground.

pp. 1129–1130, margin E

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act stand restored. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1130, margin A