• Excess of jurisdiction, limitation

To understand Problem I refer to some Supreme Court Judgement

1) Govt. Land can not be acquired under provision of Land Acquisition Act 1894
2) When Compensation under Land Acquisition Act is paid Decree is executed
3) Award under Land Acquisition Act is binding on state it can be quashed aside if there if fraud , forgery ,collusion etc done by its officers (This judgement if Govt. wants to start quashing proceeding against its own award)

Facts of the case

1) It seems it was Govt. land initially at time of first survey around 1850 (app.)
2) 1870 Judgement was given in Mortager and mortagee suit and Govt was not party to suit. Court handed transferred ownership to Mortgager  

There is provision in 1879 Bombay Land Revenue Code . That if Govt is not party to suit then it is null and voide . And Collector have to give such certificate to Court . This provision is also in Maharashtra Land revenue code 1966. Such certificate was never issued to court

3) In 1900 our ancestor purchased land from new owner who got rights from court

4) In 1907 partition of land took place

5) In 1911 A deed was signed between Collector and Our ancestor but it was wrong deed . Such deed should be signed when 
      1) Govt is owner of land , it has granted land for agriculture purpose and some one use it for Non Agriculture purpose

6) In 1928 all such thing was found and Collector passed order . Order copy missing from all offices every where . From that date remark is written on land record Lease of Land is given from 1915 to 1965 . I presume date of regularizing  of encroachment in 1928 

7) In 1965 Lease was about to end 

8) Collector introduced Land Acquisition Act for road winding  as if it is private land 

9) Land Acquisition Officer did inquiry (Here it conducted inquiry similar to Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 20 (2) inquiry whether state is owner of land or not ) and It held Govt is not owner of land hence giving award and compensation 

10) Land Acquisition officer told people they are owner not lessee

 Now in 2015 (After 45 years) question has to be taken back because next generation name have to be inserted


After thorough understanding it seems Land Acquisition Officer have done excess of Jurisdiction and have conducted inquiry which he was not supposed to do he had powers of Collector under Land Acquisition act and he used powers of collector under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 
It seems all matter will move in writ jurisdiction because civil court don't have jurisdiction to set aside land acquisition award 


1) Award should not be quashed aside after 40 years
2) Title of Govt. Land should go from land record since 40 years ago it was declared it is private land.

Since Limitation Act is not applicable for Writ , Still Limitation act states 30 years for Govt to file suit at same time I suppose we can try under delay  and laches but at same time Govt land record stands as it is , so delay can be there even for delay in changing land record and  thus ambiguity ? 

If we take matter under land revenue code whether it is govt. land or not , chances of loosing are more (rather very high) and it will be declared Govt land only So skeptical about Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Sec 20(2) . 

How to achieve Goal , Any judgement in similar cases will be appreciated
Asked 2 years ago in Constitutional Law from Mumbai, Maharashtra
1) under the provisions of section 20 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code a civil suit can be instituted in a Civil Court claiming a relief which inconsistent with the order made by the Collector under section 20 within a period of one year from the date on which the order has been passed by the Collector and in case there is an appeal, within the period of one year from the date on which the Appellate Authority decides the appeal.

2) in your case land acquisition officer passed award and has declared it to be pvyt land and awarded compensation . for acquiring part of land for road widening purposes 

3) the said order was not challenged and it attained finality . 

4) after 40 years the said issue cannot be reopened as under article 112 of limitation act limitation for filing suits by govt is 30 years 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45468 Answers
2672 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

AIR 1975 Madras 303 (The State of T.N. And another vs. P.Kanagamani and others) "18. Apart from the above considerations, the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1500 referred to already clearly and categorically lays down the proposition that an award made by a Collector under Section 11 of the Act is not a decision and that it is only an offer made by him on behalf of the Government to the owner of the land. That decision will clearly lead to the inevitable conclusion that the award of the Collector made under Section 11 of the Act cannot be questioned by way of a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

2) 	(1996) 11 SCC 501 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others) "24. In State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan8, a Bench of three Judges of this Court had held that the delay in challenging notification was fatal and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.

3)It is thus well-settled law that when there is inordinate delay in filing the writ petition and when all steps taken in the acquisition proceedings have become final, the Court should be loath to quash the notifications. The High Court has, no doubt, discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6. But it should be exercised taking all relevant factors into pragmatic consideration. When the award was passed and possession was taken, the Court should not have exercised its power to quash the award which is a material factor to be taken into consideration before exercising the power under Article 226. 
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45468 Answers
2672 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

AIR 2000 SC 671 (Municipal Council, Ahmednagar and another vs. Shah Hyder Beig and others)	"17. In any event, after the award is passed no writ petition can be filed challenging the acquisition notice or against any proceeding thereunder. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court and in one of the recent cases (C. Padma v. Dy. Secy. to the Govt. of T.N.2) this Court observed as below: (SCC p. 628, para 4) 4. The admitted position is that pursuant to the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act) in GOR No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962, total extent of 6 acres 41 cents of land in Madhavaram Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpattu District in Tamil Nadu was acquired under Chapter VII of the Act for the manufacture of Synthetic Rasina by Tvl. Reichold Chemicals India Ltd., Madras. The acquisition proceedings had become final and possession of the land was taken on 30-4-1964. Pursuant to the agreement executed by the company, it was handed over to Tvl. Simpson and General Finance Co. which is a subsidiary of Reichold Chemicals India Ltd. It would appear that at a request made by the said company, 66 cents of land out of one acre 37 cents in respect of which the appellants originally had ownership, was transferred in GOMs No. 816 Industries dated 24-3-1971 in favour of another subsidiary company. Shri Rama Vilas Service Ltd., the 5th respondent which is also another subsidiary of the Company had requested for two acres 75 cents of land; the same came to be assigned on leasehold basis by the Government after resumption in terms of the agreement in GOMs No. 439 Industries dated 10-5-1985. In GOMs No. 546 Industries dated 30-3-1986, the same came to be approved of. Then the appellants challenged the original GOMs No. 1392 Industries dated 17-10-1962 contending that since the original purpose for which the land was acquired had ceased to be in operation, the appellants are entitled to restitution of the possession taken from them. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have held that the acquired land having already vested in the State, after receipt of the compensation by the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, they have no right to challenge the notification. Thus the writ petition and the writ appeal came to be dismissed.

(xi)	2005 (3) CTC 1 (Ramalingam and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others) "3.	In these appeals, the facts are that the Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was given on 07.11.1996, whereas the writ petitions were filed on 28.11.1996, i.e. after the award was passed. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that no writ petition should be entertained after the award under the Land Acquisition Act has been passed  vide Tej Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2003 (4) SCC 485; Municipal Council, Ahmed Nagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, AIR 2000 SC 671; Executive Engineer, Jal Nigam Central Stores Division, Uttar Pradesh vs. Suresh Nand Jayal, 1997 (9) SCC 224; State of Tamil Nadu vs. L.Krishnan and others, 1996 (1) SCC 250. Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the opinion that the writ petition itself were not maintainable and they should have been dismissed on this ground itself. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. ..."
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
45468 Answers
2672 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer