MAY GEORGE v. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND ORS. INSC 417

Name of Case: May George v. Special Tahsildar & Ors. (May 25, 2010)

Citation: 2010 AIR SCW 3475, 2010 (13) SCC 98

Facts of the Case:

May George, the appellant, purchased a piece of land in Seevaram Village, Saidapet Taluk. Chingleput District, Tamil Nadu in 1961. In 1967, the Tamil Nadu government initiated land acquisition proceedings to develop an industrial estate, issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which included her property. The authorities invoked the urgency clause under Section 17, bypassing the inquiry process under Section 5-A, and an award for the acquisition was passed in 1979.

George claimed to be unaware of the acquisition proceedings and had not received the notice required under Section 9(3) of the Act, which mandates the collector to notify interested parties to present their claims for compensation. She continued to occupy the land, set up an industrial unit and obtained relevant licenses in 1984 and 1986 respectively. However in December 1986, she received a notice from the authorities to vacate the land. In response, she filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court in 1997. Her appeal to a division bench was also rejected in 2004, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court of India.

Issue:

Whether the failure to provide a notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, invalidates the acquisition proceedings.

Was the appellant's challenge to the acquisition proceedings barred due to excessive delay (laches) in filing the writ petition?

Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: Non-service of notice under Section 9(3) does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings, as the provision is directory, not mandatory. The appellant's challenge was barred by laches due to the inordinate delay in approaching the court after the completion of the acquisition process. Rationale: Nature of Section 9(3) Notice: The Court observed that while Section 9(3) requires the Collector to serve notice to persons interested, its non-compliance does not render the acquisition proceedings void. The provision is intended to afford an opportunity to claim compensation and does not affect the validity of the acquisition itself. Therefore, the absence of such notice does not vitiate the proceedings.

Doctrine of Laches: The Court noted that the appellant approached the court nearly a decade after the award was passed and possession was taken. Such a substantial delay, without satisfactory explanation, disentitles the appellant from any relief. The Court emphasized that challenges to land acquisition should be made promptly to prevent prejudice to public projects and third-party interests.