# COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES v. N. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC

- **Citation:** [2017] 3 S.C.R. 529
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-5274of2017
- **Bench:** RANJAN GOGOi, Navin Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/committee-for-fruits-and-vegetables-v-n-krishnappa-and-others-etc-31898
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6(1) - Notifications
under, for acquisition of lands for expansion of appellants
marketing yard - Challenged by landowners - Single Judge of High
Court held that the acquisition suffered from statutory noncompliance, however, keeping in view the public interest involved,
instead of setting aside the proceedings it shifted the date of
notification u/s.4(1) for determination of compensation - Jn appeals
; by landowners and the appellant, Division Bench concurring with
the Single Judge declined inte1jerence with the acquisition
proceedings in view of the larger public importance of the
acquisition - On appeal, held: Keeping in mind the larger public
interest involved in the acquisition, order of the High Court calls
for no interference - The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(2).
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors.
(2005) 13 SCC 477 : (2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421 - relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421
relied on
Para9

## Text

[2017] 3 S.C.R. 529
THE SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET
A
COMMITTEE FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
v.
N. KRISHNAPPA AND OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5248-5274of2017)
APRIL 17,2017
[RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1), 6(1) - Notifications
under, for acquisition of lands for expansion of appellants
marketing yard - Challenged by landowners - Single Judge of High
Court held that the acquisition suffered from statutory noncompliance, however, keeping in view the public interest involved,
instead of setting aside the proceedings it shifted the date of
notification u/s.4(1) for determination of compensation - Jn appeals
; by landowners and the appellant, Division Bench concurring with
the Single Judge declined inte1jerence with the acquisition
proceedings in view of the larger public importance of the
acquisition - On appeal, held: Keeping in mind the larger public
interest involved in the acquisition, order of the High Court calls
for no interference - The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 - s.24(2).
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors.
(2005) 13 SCC 477 : (2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421 - relied
on.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 421
relied on
Para9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 52485274 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bangalore in W. A. Nos. 5-8, 33-34, 35-40, 41, 45,
5247-51, 47, 48, 5214-16, 49 & 5261 of201 I and R. P. No. 302 of2011
WITH
C. A. Nos. 5275-5278, 5279-5287of2017.
529
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 3 S.C.R.
A
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, V. Lakshmi Narayanna. Sr. Advs., Dr. Nanda
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Ki shore, Nishanth Patil, Abinash Ku111ar Mishra, Shantha Kumar Mahale,
G. D. Ashwaitha Narayana, Amith J., V. N. Raghupathy, Anup Jain,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The controversy in these appeals relates to the acquisition of
42 acres 32 guntas oflands in village Go! i111angala, Saijapur Hobli, Anchal
Taluk, District Bangalore, for expansion of the Appellant's marketing
yard. Noticing infirmities in the acquisition proceedings, but declining to
quash the acquisition adverting to the larger public purpose, the High
Court shifted the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to the date
of its order i.e. 22.11 .2010, for determination of compensation. Aggrieved
by the order, both the Appellant and the landowners are in appeal before
this Court.
3. The statutory notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published on 20.5.2002 and the Award made on 31.01.2005. On a
challenge to the acquisition proceedings by the landowners, the Learned
Single Judge, after perusing the original acquisition records, held that the
declaration under Section 6( 1) of the Act was made within statutory
time from the last date of publication under Section 4( 1) of the Act. But
that the acquisition suffered from statutory non-compliance with regard
to publication in two daily newspapers under Section 4( I) of the Act and
improper consideration of the objections under Section.SA of the Act.
Adverting to the public purpose of the acquisition, the proceedings were,
however, declined interference and instead, the relief was moulded relying
upon Competent Authority vs. Baraugore Jute Factory & Ors., (2005)
13 SCC 4 77, by shifting the date of the Section 4( I) Notification.
4. Appeals were preferred both by the Landowners and the
Appellant. The Division Bench summoned the original records afresh. It
arrived at a finding at variance with the Learned Single Judge for reasons
discussed in paragraph 40 of the Order that the declaration under Section
6( I) of the Act was not within statutory time. But, declining interference
· with the acquisition proceedings, it concurred with the reasoning ascribed
by the Learned Single Judge of the larger public importance of the
acquisition.
THE SPL. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MKT. COMMITTEE FOR
FRUITS AND VEGETABLES v. N. KRISHNAPPA (NAVIN SINHA, J.]
5. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Appellant - Market Committee urged that the conclusion of the
Learned Single Judge from the original records thatthe declaration under
Section 6( I) of the Act was made within statutory time of one year was
correct and warranted no interference by the Division Bench. The last
date of publication under Section 4( I) in the Chavdi of the village was
05.08.2002. The declaration made under Section 6(1) on 02.08.2003
was within time. The date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act could not have been shifted in the manner done.
6. Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that in
the facts of the case, the High Cou11 rightly shifted the date of the Section
4(1) notification keeping in mind the larger public interest involved in the
acquisition as also the interest of the landowners.
7. Sri V.Lakshmi Narayanna, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the landowners, submitted that once the Division Bench arrived at a
finding that the declaration under Section 6( I) of the Act was beyond
the statutory time, the acquisition proceedings could not have been
sustained in the manner done. Without prejudice to the same, it was
further submitted that neither had possession been taken till date nor had
compensation been disbursed to the landowners. The acquisition
proceedings, therefore, additionally stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 I 3 (hereinafter referred to as
'the 2013 Act').
8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.·
The original acquisition records had also been summoned by us. The
observations of the Division Bench appear justified. But in the nature of
the order passed, moulding the reliefkeeping in mind the larger public
interest involved in the acquisition, and in view of Barcmgore Jute
r(1ctory (supra). we are not satisfied that the order of the High Court
calls for interference.
9. In B11ra11gore Jute Factory (supra) the acquisition suffered
from statutory non-compliance. In view of the larger public interest
involved in the acquisition, declining to set aside the acquisition the relief
was moulded in the interest of justice observing:-
" 14 ......... No useful purpose will be served by quashing the
impugned notification at this stage. We cannot be unmindful of
531
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
532
A
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 3 S.C.R.
the legal position that the acquiring authority can always issue a
fresh notification for acquisition of the land in the event of the
impugned notification being quashed. The consequence of this
will only be that keeping in view the rising trend in prices ofland,
the amount of compensation payable to the landowners may be
more. Therefore, the ultimate question will be about the quantum
of compensation payable to the landowners. Quashing of the
notification at this stage will give rise to several difficulties and
practical problems. Balancing the rights of the petitioners as
against the problems involved in quashing the impugned
notification, we are of the view that a better course will be to
compensate the landowners, that is, the writ petitioners
appropriately for what they have been deprived of. Interests of
justice persuade us to adopt this course of action."
I 0. Since the contention with regard to the 2013 Act will require
examination of facts with due opportunity, we do not consider it necessary
to deal with the same in the present proceedings and leave it open for
the aggrieved to pursue their remedies in accordance with law before
the appropriate forum, if so advised.
11. All the appeals are, therefore;. dismissed.
Divya Pandey
Appeals dismissed.