Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s appeal concerning land acquired under the same Malad notification already invalidated in Kulsum R. Nadiadwala. Treating similarly placed adjoining owners differently would be unjust. The Court rejected the claimed distinction based on the 1984 amendment, since local public notice was always required, and left the referred general question about delay and laches unanswered as unnecessary on these facts.
Issues
- Whether the Union could sustain acquisition under the same notification previously declared invalid for similarly situated landowners.
- Whether the earlier decision depended on a later statutory amendment or was confined by its direction to return half the claimant’s land.
Held
- The same notification affecting adjoining land in Malad had already been struck down. Allowing this appeal would discriminate between similarly placed owners; deciding the referred general question about delay and laches was unnecessary on these facts. (¶¶ 8, 13)
- Individual service did not dispense with mandatory publication requirements, and the High Court had also recorded the absence of a response to the owners’ specific allegation that notices had not been served. (¶ 9)
- The earlier decision concerned publication in the Gazette and local public notice, not the newspaper-publication requirement introduced in 1984. Local notice was required from inception, so the per incuriam objection based on applying the later amendment failed. (¶ 10)
- The pending Constitution Bench proceedings concerned construction of Section 24 of the 2013 acquisition legislation and did not require adjournment of this dispute. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- A declaration governing other cases is distinct from relief tailored to the parties. Restricting the earlier claimant’s possession relief to a half share did not confine the declaration invalidating the notification; the other share apparently belonged to another claimant. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Union of India’s appeal dismissed. The general referred question concerning delay and laches was not decided.