# _'f MIS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1998] 2 S.C.R. 339
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1998-03-18
- **Bench:** Sujata V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/f-mis-larsen-and-toubro-ltd-v-state-of-gujarat-and-ors-16188
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

B
Land Acquisition Act 1894-Part VII--'Section 4,6,9, 38-42, 48-Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963-Rules 3,4 -Acquisition for housing
scheme of a Company challenged by land owners-State showing compliance
of mandatory requirements by filing Affidavits-High Court holding Rules 3 C
& 4 not complied with-Order of High Court quashing acquisition set
aside-Held, in the absence of any a/legation it cannot be said that statutory
requirements not fulfilled
Section 9-Notice to person interested-Specific admission by D
Petitioners about receipt of notice-Held, Order of High Court that no
notices given, incorrect-Acquisition upheld
Sections 39-42, 48-Withdrawal of notification by State GovernmentAfter taking possession of lands-Held not legal~Held, opportunity to be
given to Company to show cause against withdrawal from acquisition.
E
Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227-Challenge to notification of
acquisition made after inordinate delay-Held, the writ petition is barred by
latches.
The State of Gujarat acquired lands of certain private owners in District F
Surat for the purpose of the housing scheme of the Appellant's employees
under Pat VII-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondents, private owners
challenged the acquisition by filing two writ petitions on the ground that the
State Government acted without any authority of law and in purported exercise
of the powers conferred upon it by committing fraud on the statute and by G
the colourable exercise of the said power and also without application of
mind. The land owners therefore sought quashing of the notification under
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In the third group of matters the State Government withdrew its notification
and released the lands of the owners. This action of the State Government
was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court and all the three H
339
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court allowed
the petitions filed by land owners and set aside the acquisition on the ground
that the State Government has not complied with the mandatory requirements
under Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and
also on the ground that no notice 1rns served on the persons in possession
B
under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court dismissed
the petition of the Appellant on the ground that the withdrawal by the State
Government is justified.
On appeal before this Court the Appellant contended that the High
Court should have dismissed the petition of the land owners on ground of
c !aches, that a notification under Section 4 has to be challenged within a
reasonable time and for any petitioner to contend that it was challenged
immediately after possession of the land was taken over was not relevant
circumstance, that the Petitioners themselves admitted the receipt of notices
under Section 9 and that it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court held
that there was no notices under Section 9.
D
In the matter of withdrawal of notification by the State Government that
Appellants contended that in respect of Survey Nos. 41/2 the possession of
the land had already been taken by them and any action under Section 48
(I) of the Act would be bad in law, that there was no notification issued under
E Section 48 of the Act making withdrawal from acquisition and it is justiciable,
that there cannot be any unilateral withdrawal and there has to be bona fide
exercise of power in case the State Government decides to withdraw from
acquisition before possession is taken over, that the observation of the High
Court that it would be open to the Appellant to lay its claim and sue the State
Government for damages if any suffered by it on account of the action of the
F State Government in withdrawing from the acquisition was objectionable,
that the observation of the High Court that the land was in reality not needed
by the Appellant

## Text

_Characters 0–39,634 of 74,201. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39634 for what follows._

_'f
MIS LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD.
A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
MARCH 18, 1998
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act 1894-Part VII--'Section 4,6,9, 38-42, 48-Land
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963-Rules 3,4 -Acquisition for housing
scheme of a Company challenged by land owners-State showing compliance
of mandatory requirements by filing Affidavits-High Court holding Rules 3 C
& 4 not complied with-Order of High Court quashing acquisition set
aside-Held, in the absence of any a/legation it cannot be said that statutory
requirements not fulfilled
Section 9-Notice to person interested-Specific admission by D
Petitioners about receipt of notice-Held, Order of High Court that no
notices given, incorrect-Acquisition upheld
Sections 39-42, 48-Withdrawal of notification by State GovernmentAfter taking possession of lands-Held not legal~Held, opportunity to be
given to Company to show cause against withdrawal from acquisition.
E
Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 227-Challenge to notification of
acquisition made after inordinate delay-Held, the writ petition is barred by
latches.
The State of Gujarat acquired lands of certain private owners in District F
Surat for the purpose of the housing scheme of the Appellant's employees
under Pat VII-Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Respondents, private owners
challenged the acquisition by filing two writ petitions on the ground that the
State Government acted without any authority of law and in purported exercise
of the powers conferred upon it by committing fraud on the statute and by G
the colourable exercise of the said power and also without application of
mind. The land owners therefore sought quashing of the notification under
Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In the third group of matters the State Government withdrew its notification
and released the lands of the owners. This action of the State Government
was challenged by the Appellant before the High Court and all the three H
339
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. The High Court allowed
the petitions filed by land owners and set aside the acquisition on the ground
that the State Government has not complied with the mandatory requirements
under Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and
also on the ground that no notice 1rns served on the persons in possession
B
under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court dismissed
the petition of the Appellant on the ground that the withdrawal by the State
Government is justified.
On appeal before this Court the Appellant contended that the High
Court should have dismissed the petition of the land owners on ground of
c !aches, that a notification under Section 4 has to be challenged within a
reasonable time and for any petitioner to contend that it was challenged
immediately after possession of the land was taken over was not relevant
circumstance, that the Petitioners themselves admitted the receipt of notices
under Section 9 and that it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court held
that there was no notices under Section 9.
D
In the matter of withdrawal of notification by the State Government that
Appellants contended that in respect of Survey Nos. 41/2 the possession of
the land had already been taken by them and any action under Section 48
(I) of the Act would be bad in law, that there was no notification issued under
E Section 48 of the Act making withdrawal from acquisition and it is justiciable,
that there cannot be any unilateral withdrawal and there has to be bona fide
exercise of power in case the State Government decides to withdraw from
acquisition before possession is taken over, that the observation of the High
Court that it would be open to the Appellant to lay its claim and sue the State
Government for damages if any suffered by it on account of the action of the
F State Government in withdrawing from the acquisition was objectionable,
that the observation of the High Court that the land was in reality not needed
by the Appellant was incorrect, that as per the report of the Surat Urban
Development Authority all the lands which were subject matter of acquisition
in all the three Writ Petitions satisfied only 45% need for housing of the
employees, that there was no ground for the State Government to withdraw
G from acquisition when proceeding for acquisition had been initiated in 1986,
that the lands proposed to be withdrawn were such that the planning of the
Appellant Housing Colony would go haywire and that they had been denied
opportunity of being heard before decision was taken by the State Government
withdrawing from acquisition. The Respondents contended that Section 48
H of the Act did not contemplate issue of any notification and withdrawal from
'1
\
I
>-
.w::
..-;,_
('
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE
341
the acquisition could be by order simplicitor, that Section 4 & 6 talked of A
notifications being issued under those provisions but there was no such
--<,
mandate in Section 48, that when statute did not require to issue any
notification for withdrawal from the acquisition, reference to Section 21 of
the General Clauses Act was not correct, that Section 21 expressly referred
to the powers being given to issue notifications etc. under an Act or
regulations and under this that power included that power to withdraw or B
rescind any notification in the similar fashion, that when Section 48 did not
empower the State Government to issue any notification and it could not be
read into the provisions that withdrawal had to be issued by a notification.
Allowing the Appeal, the Court
c
HELD : I. In the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 oflalid Acquisition
(Companies) Rules had not been complied and there being no particulars in
respect of non-compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the
High Court could have reached the finding that the statutory requirements
contained in these rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification D
under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
1.2. The finding of the High Court that it was not possible on the basis
of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with the Rules
3 & 4 is unsustainable. The High Court failed to take note of the affidavits E
of the officials of the Appellant giving details and placing on record documents
to show compliance with the requirements of Rules. The State has more then
justified Its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 bat
with Rule 3 as well, though there was ao challenge to Rule 3 and the
averments regarding non-compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without
any particulars whatsoever.
F
1.3. In view of the specific admission by the Writ Petitioners themselves
it is difficult to appreciate the finding of the High Court that no notices
under Section 9 of the Act had been issued to the Petitioners.
2.1. The finding of the High Court that possession of the land (subject
matter ofS.C.A. 5149/89) had not been handed over by the State Government
to the Appellant is not correct. The High Court could not covert itself into
a revenue court and hold that inspite of the panchnama and revenue records
actual physical possession of the acquired land had not been handed over to
G
the acquiring body. The High Court has not correctly analysed the judgments H
. ·'SUPREME COURT .REPORTS ·~ ,.,...[1998] 2 S.c.R:
••
•
.
-
_,
- -
'•-
.
'
I
j '-
-
•
;,
,,
'
A of this Court to come to the conclusion that actual physical possession of the
land was not takeO:over by thC State.-_.-,,;; ·i-;«•- .. •. ,.;~;-. ·~":·: ~
~i·,d;;, ;:i,;_, ~
· 'Ba/mukand Khatri Educational and Industrial· Trust.• 'Amritsarv ;'State·
of Ptmjab, )1996) 4 SCC 212; Ba/want fl/araya11 Bagde v; Af.B.· Bhagwat &:
Ors.,. )1976) 1 S~C. 700 and Tamil Nadu HousingBoardv; 'A Viswam (Dead)•
B byLRs.;;)1996l8 sec: 259, relied on; ... ". ,,., ••••·. ;''"" ! ••• ""·'"'""
·- '• .
, ,- ,, - ; 1_;( °'. _ _ii
; . ,,
•• ;! I : ,, •', "; '· .; '. • ~' •:;
,·, !' j ,f"
. 3. ,The,Writ Petitio(\ is barred, by fatches.as,well.,." 'c
:•" ,,,
"
,: .- •. -' : .. . •-. ·-1;
; (·
,; ''"''-"·:i:i.' :, 1,; '~;,,·,i '-,~·; -.,;, •: 1:n !·,,.:
4.1. A notification in the Omcial Gazette is required to be issued if
the State Government decides to withdraw, from the. acquisition under.Section
C · 48 of the Act of 1894, of any land of which possession °has not been taken.
An o~Tier 11eed .not be given .any notic~ of.the intention o~the State G0v,ernment
to withdraw from the acquisition and the.State Government is at liberty to 1
d~so: In th~ ~se of a Compau'y opportu~ity has to.be give~ to it to show ~ause;
against any orde,rwhich th_e State,Government proposes to make "ithdrawing !
D; from the .acquisition. )365:,A~C). :, ,;:,.:," '"" ".,.
; , ,, ,.;, "' i·. "''·'""'
···,;;
·· i ·.;:; ., J '"·'' _.,,;
.-.~·-,::.-
··,.·iL:1~1.!1 i,,1.,; _•._-i;··\\-,. ·r:i.i;;:~
4.2 A declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made by notification
only after formalities under Part VII of the.Act which contains Sections 3942 ha~e been' co;n'plied a'~ii' th~ r~p~rl .i'r th~ c~i1ea~r' 1£n'.J~~ se~iion 5-A (2)
• ,,.._'
•
<: ';' ._ .... "" - '·l ... '/ .·t ·~:: ~.,. ! .. ,, ,; -, ... ,.,,,1 ;.'" ~,.i.~ .•. ,. -..
~
.-.~
of the Act is before the State Government who consents to acquire the land 1
'!' '!.:'-;:;;'. ·,;: •'' .,. ,, '"•'':' •'
_.,:~ •• l 1"'-' _, f
~": ,\,.;
_ .. ;. ,.,._ ..... ,! ..... ,
;, -
E' on its satisfaction that it is needed for the Company. A valuable right, thus
-'"<i': '.l'" -•'·' "1 .,.,. ,,_· ,,~;:;,:-: __ ;.;•,_ ;-··:.;.- .• ·:.-.,: '··"· •""'·; ;, • : ""·-
,,..
'~·· ."
accru.s· io the company to oppose the proposed decision of the State .
''.
;1
;,_;··: "': .• ,
•• -_. :·.
-- ; 1!1-: ,,, !\•,-,.,;·~' '•,
'. ·p: •. ', .. ""''<:,,:;!: ...• _.,._,,,_. ~'-'
Government withdrawing from acquisition. The State Government ma1 have .
· ,.; '
'""''. 1-'lf' • 1 " \'I ., ·;_,,,;,-'1•11« •-• "·.': ''·" ••-'"' ;;,:" •'!•>0•: •,i
. ~I<., •'f
sound reasons to withdraw froni acquisition butthose must be made known .
, ... ,,.,,_.
. ·.: .,, ·-· :' '. '•.::
-- •.:' ,, •'-). : .. '""' .. ; .... ,, '
-,;~,.-:
~ .. ,:·
to the ~ompany which may, have equally sound reasons or perhaps mo,re
which . .;;ight persuad~, ihe Staie Govern'in~nt to reye;~ .. it~ d~cisio;; •.
F ' withdrawing from acquisition. The memo ofwithdra\;.~1 ~r:i'cq~i;itl~~'i;sued ·
without notice to Appellants are thus not legal. )365-H; 366-A-BJ , .
.
~ • ·-. :.l ~ )~- ;-,---
.
~: •. __ ;; «l _''.. ,_,,: •... ! ,: ,, ", ...... ,. ;- '''•
·-·
·:· CIVIL APELLATE·JURISDICTION':'Civil Appeal NoS'.' 1672 or''
1998 Etc.
.,_' '-l' ;:_-- ,r; ,;.; "' ~
-...~;':-' ;-_.,-• .-·:
::";~
,,'
;_ ),, :... ::, i'._,-~f'. ',t_,,\;'
G
from the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.97 of th~ Gujarat High Court
in Special Civil Application No. 5171 of) 991.. , .,
;.; ;
; "' ""' .. "
.
'
.
'
·'
-
.
__ ,
·--'
· · Bhimrao N.'Naik, S.K: Dholakia, R.P. Bhatt; Haiish N.' Salve, Bh.U:at
Sanga~ N.ICNeeraj, Ms: H: Wahi, Ms: S. Hazai'ika,'M.N: Shroff, Ms:Truiuj.i"
Sheel, Ms: Meenakshf Arora and l.M .. Naitavati. and Associates' (NP) for the '
H ·appearing parties:·· ... ".;· ... ·,, • "·" "" '""
'
, , .. , "" ·::-•:
r
)
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]
343
The Judgment of the Court was <lei ivered by
A
D.P. WADHW A, J. Leave granted.
All these five appeals arise out of a common judgment dated February
27, 1997 ofa Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in three Special Civil
Applications (SCA) Nos. 1568/87, 5149/89 and 5171/91 whereby the High
Court set aside the acquisition of land for Mis. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. ('L&T B
Ltd.' for short) under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, I 894 (for
short, 'the Act') comprised in SCAs 1568/87 and 5149/89 and dismissed the
challenge of L&T Ltd. in SCA 5171/91 for withdrawal from acquisition by the
State Government under Section 48 of the Act. In all these matters, different
notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued as it appeared to the
State Government that lands specified in these notifications which were under C
challenge in these matters were likely to be needed for the purpose of a
housing colony of the L&T Ltd. "which was engaged in Engineering
Manufactures Industries which was for a public purpose". All the lands are
situated in Village Mandalla, Taluk Choryasi, District Surat. In SCA 1568/1987
acquisition was set aside on the ground that there was no compliance with
the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, D
.)(
1963 ('Rules' for short). In SCA 5149/89 acquisition was set aside not only
on the ground of non-compliance with the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules but also
that petitioners therein were not served with notice under Section 9 of the Act
before passing of the award. In SCA 5171 High Court held that the decision
of the State Government for withdrawal from acquisition under Section 48 of E
the Act was neither illegal for ultra vires though the same would be enforceable
only on the issuing of notification under Section 48 of the Act. In this case,
High Court also held that actual physical possession of the land had not been
delivered to the acquiring body L&T Ltd. Against the order passed in SCA
1568/87 both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special leave
petition Nos. 11957/97 and 12986/97 respectively. Against the order in SCA F
5149/89 again both L&T Ltd. and the State Government have filed special
leave petitions respectively bearing Nos. 11900/97 and 14637/97. Against the
order in SCA 5171/91 it is only the L&T Ltd. who is aggrieved and has filed
special leave petition No. 11778/97. In this State Government is supporting its
action for withdrawal from acquisition.
Under the Act, land can be acquired for a company as well. "Company"
means a company as defined in Sectio~ 3 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Petitioner is such a company. Under Section 4 of the Act whenever it appears
to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely
G
to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that
effect shall be published and a public notice also to be given in the said H
·,,-I·/~- '--.,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ···--(1998] 2 S.C.R.
A locality. Undor Section 5-A any person interested in any land notified under
Section 4 can object to the acquisition of the land or of.any land in the
locality, as the case may be. Procedure is prescribed as to how objections are
to be heard by the Collector and his making the report to the Government.
Under Section 6 when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering
B the report, if any; made under Section 5-A that any land is needed for a public
purpose, or fo~ ~Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect. Part VII
of the Act deals with acquisition of land for companies. Under Section 39
falling in Part VII, the provisions of Sections 6 to 16 and Sections 18 to 37
shall not be put in force in order to acquire land for any Company unless with
the previous consent of the appropriate Govenment and not unless the
C Company shall have executed the agreement as prescribed. Under Section 40
an enquiry is to be made before the appropriate_ Government consents to
acquisition of land for the Company. This Section, in relevant part, is as
under:
"40. Previous enquiry.· (I) Such consent shall not be given unless the
D
appropriate Government be satisfied, either on the report of the
Collector under Section 5-A, sub-section (2), or by an enquiry held as
hereinafter provided-
(a) that the purpose of the acquisition to obtain land for. the
erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company
E
or· for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith, or
(aa)
(b)
"
Such enquiry shall be held by such officer and at such time and place
F as the appropriate Government shall appoint. Under Section 41 if the appropriate
Government is satisfied after considering the report of the Collector under
Section 5-A and on the report under Section 40 that the proposed acquisition
is for the_ purpose mentioned in Section 40 it shall require the company to
enter into an agreement providing for the following matters, namely :-
G
"(I) the payment to the appropriate Government of the cost of the
~ acquisition;
(2) the transfer, on such payment, of the land to the Company;
H
(3) the terms on which the land shall be held by the Company;
_,
... -
;
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.)
345
(4) where the acquisition for the purpose of erecting dwelling houses A
or the provision of amenities connected therewith, the time within
which, the conditions on which and the manner in which the dwelling
houses or amenities shall be erected or provided;"
Under Section 42 every such agreement shall be published in the Official
Gazette and shall thereupon have the same effect as if it had formed part of B
the Act. Under Section 55 of the Act powers have been conferred on the
approopriate Government and on the Central Goverment to make rules. This
Section, in relevant part, is as under :
"55. Power to make rules.- (I) The appropriate Government shall
havde power to make rules consistent with this Act for the guidance C
of officers in all matters connected with its enforcement, and may from
time to time alter and add to the rules so made :
Provided that the power to make rules for carrying out the purposes
of Part Vil of this Act shall be exercisable by the Central Government
and such rules may be made for the guidance of the State Governments D
and the officers of the Central Government and of the State
Governments :
Provided further .................................. .
In exercise of the powers so conferred under Section 55 of the Act, the E
Central Government has framed Rules called "the Land Acquisition
(Companies) Rules, 1963.
Arguments have proceeded on the basis that Rules 3 and 4 of the
aforesaid Rules are mandatory. High Court has held that Rules 3 and 4 have F
been violated. We may set out Rules 3 and 4 which are as under :
"3. Land Acquisition Committee. - (I) For the purpose of advising the
appropriate Government in relation to acquisition of land under Part
VII of the Act the appropriate Government shall, by notification in the
Official Gazette, constitute a Committee to be called the Land G
Acquisition Committee.
(2) The Committee shall consist of -
(i) the Secretaries tothe Government of the Depatiments of
Revenue, Agriculture and Industries or such other officers of H
346
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1998] 2 S.C.R.
eacli of the said Departments as the ,appropriate Government
may appoint; and
(ii) su~h other members as the appropriate Government may
appoint, for such term as that Government may, by order, specify.
(J} The appropriate Government shall appoint one of the members of
the Committee to be its Chairman.
(4) The Committee shall regulate its own procedure.
(5) It shall be duty of the Committee to advise the appropriate
Government on all matters relating to or arising out of acquisition of
land under Part Vil of the Act, on which it is consulted and to tender
its advice within one month from the date on which it is consulted:
Provided that the apropriate Government may on a request being
made in this behalf by the Committee and for sufficient reasons extend
the said period to a further period not exceeding two months.
,._
4.
Appropriate Government to be satisfied with regard to certain
""
matters before initiating acquisition proceedings.- (!) Whenever a
Company makes an applicaiton to the appropriate Government for
acquisition of any land, that Government shall direct the Collector to
submit a report to it on the following matters, namely-
(i) that the company has made its best endeavour to find out lands
in the locality suitable for the purpose of acquisition;
(ii) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such
lands by negotiations with the persons interested therein on
payment of n:asonable price and such efforts have failed;
(iii) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose;
(iv) that the area of land proposed to be acquired is not excessive;
(v) that the company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously;
and
(vi) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural
land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid
acquisition of that land.
\
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WAOHWA, .I.]
347
(2) The Collector shall, after giving the company a reasonable A
opportunity to make any representation in this behalf, hold an inquiry
into the matters referred to in sub-rule (I) and while holding such
enquiry' he shall-
(i) in any case where the land proposed to be acquired is agricultural
land consult the Senior Agricultural Officer of the district whether B
or not such land is good agricultural land;
(ii)
determine, having regard to the provisions of Section 23 and 24
of the Act, the approximate amount of compensation likely to be
payable in respect of the land, which, in the opinion of the C
Collector, should be acquired for the Company; and
(iii) ascertain whether the company offered a reasonable price (not
being less than the compensation so determined), to the persons
interested in the land proposed to be acquired.
Explanation : For the purpose of this rule "good agricultural land"
means any land which, -:onsidering the level of agricultural production
and the crop pattern of the area in which it is situated, is of average
or above average productivity and includes a garden or grove land.
D
(3) As soon as may be after holding the enquiry under sub-rule (2) E
the Collector shall submit the report to the appropriate Government
and a copy of the same shall be forwarded by the Government to the
Committee.
( 4) No declaration shall be made by the apropriate Government under
Section 6 of the Act unlessF
(i) . the appropriate Government has consulted the Committee and
has considered the report submitted under this rule and the
report, if any, submitted under Section 5A of the Act; and
(ii) the agreement under Section 41 of the Act has been executed G
by the company."
We may also reproduced s~ction 9 which reads as under :
"9. Notice to persons interested. (I) the Collector shall then cause
public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to H
348
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
be taken, stating that the government intends to take p:issession of
the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land
may be to him.
(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed,
and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally
or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therin mentioned
(such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of
publication of the notice), and to state the nature of the respective
interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to
compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the
measurements made under Section 8. The Collector may if any case
requires such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party
or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the
occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or
D
believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons
so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service
on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested reside elsewhere, and has no
such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed
E
to his last known residence, address or place of business and registered
under Sections 28 and 29 of the indian Post Office Act, 1898."
In first special leave petition No. 12986/97, land situated in Survey No.
40, Village Mandalla, Taluk Choryasi in District Surat was subject matter of
acquisition. Mis. Mangal Park Cooperative Housing Society, respondent No. I
F challenged the action of the State Government in acquiring the land by
issuing notification and declaration under Section 4 and 6 of the Act on the
ground that it act~d "without any authority of law and in purported exercise
of the powers conferred upon it by committing fraud on the statute and by
the colourable exercise of the said power and also without application of
mind". First respondent, therefore, sought quashing of the notification under
G Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In whole body of the
petition before the High Court it was never stated that provisions of Rule 3
had been contravened. It was submitted that provisions of Sections 4 to 37
of the Act could not be put into operation to acquire land for a company
unless with the previous consent of the State Government nor before the
H company had executed an agreemert as mentioned in Section 41 of the Act.
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WADl-IWA, .I.]
349
It was then submitted that in this case neither the consent of the State A
Government was obtained nor the company seemed to have executed
agreement as provided in Section 37 read with Section 41 of the Act before
issuance of the notificatio under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6
of the Act. Rule 4 was quoted and with reference to it was contended that
statutory requirements contained in the said Rule had not been fulfilled before B
issuance of the impugned notificaiton and declaration and also that L&T Ltd.
made no efforts to purchase land by negotiation nor the competent authority
had held any enquiry as contemplated by Rule 4. It was also alleged that
under Section 42 the agreement entered into, if any, between the State
Government and L&T Ltd. was required to be published in the official gazette
and that no such agreement to the knowledge of the petitioner was published C
in any gazette. In the counter affidavits filed in the High Court both L&T Ltd.
and State Government denied the allegations so made by the petitioner, the
first respondent herein.
In the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 had not been complied and
there being no particulars in respect of non-compliance of Rule 4 also, it is D
difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that
statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before
issuance of notification under Section 4 and c!eclaration under Section 6 of
the Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the
conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record E
of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was
"not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was
compliance with the Rules 3 and 4''. In the affidavit filed by Mr. S.M. Vankar,
Under Secretary, Government of Gujarat, Department of Revenue it was stated
that as per the requirement of Rule 3, a Committee had been constituted by
the State Government which consisted of(!) Secretary, Revenue Department F
(Land Acquisition), (2) Joint Commissioner of Industries, (3} Deputy Secretary,
Agricultural Department (4) past M.L.A., (5) Member and (6) President ofZila
Panchayat. In this affidavit it was also stakd that the Assistant Collector,
Surat prepared a detailed report which he submitted to the Collector in
consonance with the relevant Rule5, which was forwarded by the Collector G
and placed before the aforesaid Committee. Deputy Secretary, who was ExOfficio Member Secretary of the Committee addressed a letter to all the
members in this connection and along with that letter he circulated a note in
connection with the acquisition of the land in quest10n. President of the
District Panchayat and a Member of the Committee also submitted a separate H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1998] 2 S.C.R.
A report to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department. The Committee thereafter
met and discussed the matter and recommended acquisition of land for L&T
Ltd. to the Government. In this view of the matter it is difficult to understand
as to how the High Court said that there was no compliance with Rule 3 by
the State Government when as a matter of fact, as noted above, there was no
B mention of non-compliance with Rule 3 in whole body of the writ petition.
High Court, in our opinion, failed to take note of the affidavit of Mr. Y.S.
Trivedi, Senior Manager, L&T Ltd. and that of Mr. R.S. Bohora, Manager of
the L&T Ltd. giving details and placing on record documents to show
compliance with the requirements of Rule 4. We do not think it is necessary
for us to set out in any ddail as to how requirements of Rule 4 have been
C complied when in presence of the relevant record it was difficult for the
respondent to contend otherwise. It was conceded that there was no specific
avennent relating to Rule 3. Even otherwise, we find that stipulations contained
in Rule 3 were fully observed. As regards non-compliance of Rule 4 it was
submitted that there was no independent report of the collector. 1 hat is also
not correct. It is not necessary for the Collector personally to examine all the
D details himself. He can certainly call for the report from the Assistant Collector
as the circumstances of a case may demand and act on the same. As a matter
of fact only two contentions had been raised by the petitioners before the
High Court and that were that the land belonging to a cooperative housing
society which itself was a public purpose could not be subject to acquisition
E and that Rule 4 had not been complied. There were, however, no particulars
stated in the petition as to how it could be so said. It is not enough to allege
that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement
of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that
there is non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice
F
can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid any particular. No issue
can be raised on a plea foundation of which is lacking. Even where Rule Nisi
is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the
Court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though
ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the Court. In the
present case, hoV\ever, we find that the State has more than justified its stand
G that there has beep compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well,
though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the avennents regarding noncompliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever,
High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings
in SCA 1568/87.
H
In Special leave petition No. 11900/97 (arising out of SCA 5149/89), it
· ..
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]
351
was submitted by Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant L&T Ltd. that A
the writ petition should have been dismissed by the High Court on the
ground of !aches. In this case notification under Section 4 was issued on
January 23, 1986, declaration under Section 6 on February 10, 1987, notices
under Section 9 issued on January 27, 1989 and possession of the land taken
over on July 5, 1989 and the writ petition was filed on July 19, 1989. Mr. Naik
said in view of the law laid down by this court notification under Section 4 B
has to be challenged within a reasonable time and for any petitioner to
contend that it was challenged immediately after possession of the land was
taken over was not a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration.
He criticised the judgment of the High Court holding that no notices under
Section 9 of the Act had been served upon the petitioners. He referr~d to C
averments made in the writ petition itself wherein petitioners themselves
admitted that two separate notices under Section 9 were served upon them
as different portions of Survey No. 41/2 which were on the two sides of the
canal were acquired. These petitioners further stated that as soon as the
notices were served on them they made an application to the Deputy Collector
and Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned stating that the land was
being acquired contrary to law and that the decision of the Government was
illegal. It was also stated in the writ petition that various other points were
also made in the representation to the Deputy Collector and Special Land
Acquisition Officer. In view of specific admission by the petitioners themselves
D
it is difficult to appreciate how the High Court could say that no notices under E
Section 9 of the Act has been issued to the petitioners. Mr. Naik further
pointed out that there was no occasion for the High Court also to hold that
there was non-compliance of Rules 3 and 4 when it was not the case of the
petitioners anywhere.
Nevertheless L&T Ltd. and the State Government filed affidavits showing F
absolute compliance with Rules 3 and 4. The fact that there was certainly no
allegation of non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 in the writ petition has been
admitted by learned counsel for the respondents I to 4.
High Court held that actual physical possession of the land subject
matter of the acquisition proceeding was not handed over to the appellant G
while it was the contention of the appellant as well as the State Government
that possession of the land was handed over to L&T Ltd. on July 5, 1989.
At the time the possession was taken over a Panchanama was prepared duly
witnessed by two farmers of the Village Magdalla and singed by the Circle
Officer evidencing handing over of possession and also by M.H. Adhikari an H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 2 S.C.R.
A officer of the L&T Ltd. for taking over possession. The possession receipt
of the same date duly signed by the Circle Officer and the officer of the L&T
Ltd. was given. L&T Ltd. thus took possession of the land in presence of the
panchas. Panchanama recites that both the witnesses (Panchas) had been
intimated in advance by Mamlatdar. Choryasi and that possession of the
B concerned land that day taken over in their presence by the Circle Officer and
that the land was an open spot and there was no construction or crops grown
therein. Possession of the land was taken over along with the trees standing
thereon. As noted above, possession was thereafter delivered to the
representative of the L&T Ltd. at that time itself. In the High Court it was
contended that no actual physical possession of the land had been taken.
C The petitioners filed affidavits of the Panchas who had signed the Panchanama.
D
In these affidavits they stated that they were called to the office of the
Panchayat and that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and that
they had not gone to the site and that neither the landlord was present not
the actual possession was delivered to the acquiring body. Read with these
affidavits High Court noticed from the recitation in the Panchanama that it
was nowhere mentioned that the panchas had gone to the site from the office
of the Panchayat. It was not disputed that in the revenue records it was L&T
Ltd. who was shown in possession of the land. Affidavits of the Panchas filed
in the High Court which contained statements contrary to what was recorded
in the Panchanama and against the revenue entries are quite meaningless and
E in our opinion High Court unnecessarily put undue reliance on the same. High
Court could not convert itself into a revenue court and hold that in spite of
the Panchanama and the revenue records actual physical possession of the
acquired land had not been handed over to the acquiring body. High Court;
in our opinion, has not correctly analysed the two judgments of this Court
in Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of
p Punjab, (1996] 4 SCC 212, and Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. MD. Bhagwat
and Ors., [ 1976] l SCC 700, to come to the conclusion that actu.al physical
possession of the land was not taken over by the State.
In Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat & Ors., [1975] Supp.
SCR 250 = I SCC 700, a three Judge Bench of this Court was considering the
G question of taking possession of the acquired land under the Act. Bhagwati,
J. (as he then was) delivered judgment for himself and A.C. Gupta, J. He said
he agreed with the conclusion reached by Untwalia, J. (who was the third
Judge) as also with the reasoning on which the conclusion was based. He,
however, said that a separate judgment was being written as he felt that it was
H not necessary to consider the question of delivery of "symbolical" and
-r
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD. v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.]
353
"actual" possession as provided in Rules 35, 26, 95 and 96 of order XX! of A
the Code of Civil Procedure as that was not necessary for the disposal of the
appeal before the Court. Bhagwati, J. said as under:
"There can be no question of taking 'symbolical' possession in the
sense understood by judicial decisions under the code of civil
Procedure. Nor would possession merely on paper be enough. What B
the Act contemplates as a necessary condition of vesting of the land
in the Government is the taking of actual possession of the land. How
such possession may be taken would depend on the nature of the
land. Such possession would have to be taken as the nature of the
land admits of. There can be no hard and fast rule laying down what C
act would be sufficient to constitute taking of possession of land. We
should not, therefore, be taken as laying down an absolute and
inviolable rule that merely going on the spot and making a declaration
by beat of drum or otherwise would be sufficient to constitute taking
of possession of land in every case. But here, in our opinion, since
the land was lying fallow and there was no crop on it at the material D
time, the act of he Tehsildar in going on the spot and inspecting the
land for the purpose of determining what part was waste and arable
and should, therefore, be taken possession of and determining its
extent, was sufficient to constitute taking of possession. It appears
that the appellant was not present when this was done by the Tehsildar, E
but the presence of the owner or the occupant of the !and is not
necessary to effectuate the taking of possession. It is also not strictly
necessary as a matter of legal requirement that notice should be given
to the owner or the occupant of the land that possession would be
taken at a particular time, though it may be desirable where possible,
to give such notice before possession is taken by the authorities, as F
that would eliminate the possibility of any fraudulent or collusive
transaction of taking of mere paper possession, without the occupant
or the owner ever coming to know of it."
In Tamil Nadu Housing board v. A. Viswam (Dead) by LRs., (1996] 8
sec 259 the issue whether the land in question was taken possession of in G
proceedings under the Act. It is not necessary for us to refer to the facts of
that case. We find the following statement of law relevant to the controversy
in the present case:
"It is settled law by series of judgments of this Court that one of the
accepted modes of taking possession of the acquired land is recording H
A
B
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1998] 2 S.C.R.
of a memorandum of Panchanama by the LAO in the presence of
witnesses winged by him/them and that would constitute takina "
possession of the land as it would be impossible to take physical
possession of the acquirelil land.