- (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.7.2006 of the Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Port Blair whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the respondent was allowed.
(2.) Respondent - M/s. Andaman Timber Industries owned 8.86 hectares land comprised in Survey Nos. 23/3 and 23 in Shorepoint Village, Bambooflat, South Andaman. In furtherance of the request made by the Port Management Board, Port Blair for acquisition of the respondent's land for the purpose of creating Foreshore Port facilities, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration issued notification dated 23.7.2002 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). On the next day, i.e., 24.7.2002 another notification was issued under Section 17(4) and the application of Section 5A of the Act was dispensed with. The declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) was issued on 30.7.2002. The Land Acquisition Collector issued notice dated 6.8.2002 under Section 9(1) to the respondent for taking possession. Simultaneously, the requisitioning body was directed to deposit an estimated amount of L 14,20,97,426. However, due to paucity of funds, the requisitioning body represented that it is in a position to deposit only L 3.10 crores towards a portion of the acquired land in the first phase of acquisition. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award in respect of 3.64 hectares land out of total 8.86 hectares land and the amount payable under the said part, i.e., L 3,03,03,567 was paid to the respondent. No further steps were taken for the acquisition of the remaining land despite the fact that the Administration had invoked Section 17 of the Act. In the meanwhile, the workers of the respondent company, who had not received their Voluntary Retirement Scheme compensation, raised an industrial dispute which culminated into an award providing for payment of the compensation out of the compensation to be received by the respondent company from acquisition of its land. The respondent then filed Writ Petition No.197/2004 for issue of a direction to the Administration to pass final award in respect of balance land measuring 5.22 hectares. By an order dated 25.11.2004, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants herein to complete the land acquisition proceedings within four months from the date of order. M.A.T.No.001/2005 filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that due to non-compliance of the mandate of Section 17(3-A) of the Act the acquisition proceedings in respect of 5.22 hectares will be deemed to have lapsed after two years prescribed under Section 11(A) of the Act. He further argued that after lapse of the acquisition proceedings, the land cannot be treated to have vested with the appellants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent controverted the aforesaid argument and submitted that land had vested in the appellants because possession was taken by invoking Section 17(1) of the Act. He further argued that once the possession vested with the appellants, the same cannot be withdrawn even by invoking Section 48 of the Act. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Satendra Prasad Jain and others v. State of U.P. and others (1993) 4 SCC 369.;