The Supreme Court has cleared the decks in a nearly 38-year-old land acquisition matter in Andhra Pradesh, with critical remarks against the courts for showing "undue sympathy" towards the land owners.
A bench of justices A R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel said it was "not just and proper" for courts to show sympathy by asking the land owners to make representation to the government when it was against legal provisions to withdraw land which has already been acquired.
"Be that as it may, the courts were quite sympathetic towards the land owners and therefore, every time the land owners were asked to make a representation to the Government (due to which) these three rounds of litigation have taken place, which, in our opinion, is not fair or justifiable," the bench said.
Also Read
"Such undue sympathy has relegated the land owners to this long drawn litigation which has not helped them at all," it said.
The apex court's verdict came on the petition filed by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order which had allowed the plea filed by land owners against government's order cancelling a decision regarding withdrawal of acquisition proceedings.
While setting aside the high court's order, the apex court said "we are of the view that the acquisition proceedings could not have been quashed by the High Court, especially when the Government had not acted in accordance with law while withdrawing the land in question from the acquisition proceedings."
The bench observed that the land was required for widening of road and under the Land Acquisition Act, the government has power to acquire land for public purpose.
The first notification regarding acquisition of land in Visakhapatnam was issued by the government on March 20, 1978.
The apex court, in its verdict, said "it is very clear that though possession of the land in question was taken on February 20, 1982, the Government wanted the acquisition to be cancelled and, in our opinion, it could not have been done in view of the provisions of section 48 of the (Land Acquisition) Act".
The bench said after taking possession of the land from the owners, power under section 48 of the Act could not have been exercised.
As per section 48 of the Act, completion of acquisition
is not compulsory but in case of non-completion, compensation has to be awarded.
The issue arose after the March 20, 1978 notification and after the award was made, the land owners had made a request to the concerned authorities for withdrawal of acquisition.
Thereafter, the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act was ordered to be withdrawn by government's order of February 25, 1982, but subsequently this order was cancelled by another order of November 11, 1983.
The land owners then filed a petition in the court seeking quashing of November 11, 1983 order and the plea was disposed of on April 25, 1984 by giving a direction to the authorities to reconsider the issue.
The April 25, 1984 order was challenged but the high court dismissed it on February 1, 1989.
The government thereafter issued an order on February 27, 1990 requesting the collector to return the land to the owners but this order also was cancelled on April 30, 1998.
The land owners again approached the high court against it and the court directed the government to reconsider the matter.
They also filed another petition seeking return of land, which was allowed by the high court and the authorities were directed to deliver possession of the land.
The authority then approached the apex court which asked the government in February 2006 to reconsider the representation made by the land owners.
In pursuance of the apex court's order, the government decided to withdraw the acquisition proceedings, but again in August 2009, the authorities cancelled the decision after which another petition was filed in court which allowed it on February 7, 2011.
The state government and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority filed appeal against the order but their petition was dismissed in January 2012 after which the present matter came up before the Supreme Court.
