STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Vs. ABDUL ALI AND ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 95 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 04, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2017
               [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 299 OF 2017]
           [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C).....CC NO. 16639 OF 2016]


      STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.                         Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

      ABDUL ALI AND ORS.                            Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Delay condoned.  Leave granted.
2.    The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved by  the  Judgment  and
order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the High Court of judicature at  Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, in Writ Petition No. 38497 of 1993.

3.     The  respondents  approached   the   High   Court   challenging   the
Notifications  dated  17.12.1992  and  16.06.1993  and   the   Award   dated
09.08.1989, in so far as it related  to  part  of  Plot  No.9,  situated  in
Village  Imilia,  Tehsil  Maunath  Bhanjan,  District  Mau,  Uttar  Pradesh,
belonging to the respondents.

4.    It is not in dispute that the disputed property was not  part  of  the
Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894
(in short, "the Act") and naturally, not a part of Section 6 declaration  as
well.  According to the learned counsel for the appellants,  the  Award  was
announced on 09.08.1989, covering the entire  area  including  the  disputed
property.  Realizing that there  was  no  Notification  in  respect  of  the
disputed property  issued  under  Section  4  and  Section  6  of  the  Act,
corrigenda were issued on 17.12.1992 and 16.06.1993, including the  disputed
property  under  Section  4  and  Section  6  Notification  and  Declaration
originally issued on 16.03.1989 and 05.04.1989 respectively.   According  to
the learned counsel for the appellants, the steps thus taken  by  them  have
cured the defective procedure adopted in the acquisition.

5.    We are afraid that the contentions raised by the appellants cannot  be
appreciated.  Once the  Award  is  passed,  there  is  no  question  of  any
correction in the Notification  under  Section  4(1)  or  Declaration  under
Section 6 of the Act.  The Act, under Section 13A  provides  for  correction
of clerical mistakes in the Award and  that  too  only  within  six  months.
There is no question of an Award being passed in respect of a property,  for
which  there  is  no  Notification  under  Section  4(1)  and  consequently,
Declaration under Section 6 of the Act.  Thus, there  is  no  merit  in  the
appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

6.    However, we make it clear that this Judgment shall not  stand  in  the
way of the appellants, if so advised, in initiating acquisition  proceedings
afresh in respect of the disputed property in accordance with law.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                       [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

                                                   .......................J.
                                                     [ A. M. KHANWILKAR]

      New Delhi;
      January 04, 2017.