Tata Communication Ltd vs Santosh Babanrao Walke & Ors

2 4. In the year 1986, it was transferred to Videsh

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL), a wholly owned Government of

India undertaking to whom all assets and liabilities of

Overseas Communication Service were transferred. The land

has been in use and possession of the appellants and their

predecessors for the last 85 years. After a delay of about

85 years, a public interest litigation was filed in the

Bombay High Court. It may be pertinent to mention here that

when this petition earlier came up for hearing before a

Division Bench of the High Court on 22.7.2009, following

order was passed:

"1. Heard.

2. We will highly appreciate if the respondent- State is able to place on record as to whether any Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed subsequent to the notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated August 20, 1925 in respect of the subject land. We also grant leave to the petitioner to suitably amend the petition which is in the nature of public interest litigation, for which an application should be filed alongwith the Schedule of Draft Amendment, as in our view the relief sought in the petition can only be restricted to payment of compensation.

3. Stand over to 36th August, 2009."

5. On 20th January, 2010, while issuing rule in the 3

petition, the Bombay High Court directed that during the

pendency of the petition, respondent-authorities i.e. State

Government as well as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited shall

preserve the land and would not carry out any construction

over the portion of the land for which no compensation has

been paid to the tenants/land owners.

6. In the earlier order of 22nd July, 2009, quoted above,

leave was granted to the petitioner in the public interest

litigation (respondent herein) to amend the petition which

was in the nature of public interest litigation in which

the relief sought was restricted to payment of compensation

only.

7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we see

no justification in subsequently passing an order

restraining the State Government from constructing over the

land in question, particularly when the writ petition

itself had been filed after a delay of 85 years and the

land stood acquired as early as in 1925.

8. On consideration of the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order

dated 20th January, 2010 by which the State Government as

well as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited have been restrained

from carrying out any construction over the land in 4

question and request the High Court to dispose of the writ

petition as expeditiously as possible.

9. In case the claimants are entitled for any

compensation, the same would be paid to them by the

concerned authorities in accordance with law.

10. With the aforementioned observations and directions,

these appeals are disposed of.

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DEEPAK VERMA) New Delhi;

November 15, 2010.