Important Point
Although State authorities were not justified in invoking urgency provision u/s. 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for dispensing with inquiry u/s. 5A of the Act in these cases yet the appellants cannot be relegated to remedy u/s. 5A of the Act as the real and only question is whether these lands have Abadi or not which is kept open for considerations of appropriate authorities. For this purpose, liberty in reserved to the appellants for filing written representations u/s. 48(1) of the Act. So appeals are dismissed subject to aforesaid liberty.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 —Sections 4(1), 5A and 17(1) and 17(4) (after 1954 amendment)—Notification dated 5.1.91 u/s. 4 for acquisition of 494.26 acres of land of village Chhalera Banger for the planned Industrial Development of Sector 43 and other Sectors of NOIDA—Invocation of Section 17 (4) for dispensing with Section 5A enquiry to any objections—Followed by Notification dated 27.1.92 under Section 6—Ground of urgency alleged to be apprehension of encroachments and constructions on lands to be acquired—Whether a valid ground? (No, it is a law and order problem which has nothing to do with the acquisition and urgency for taking possession) — Valid ground of urgency that a large number of objections would have indefinitely delayed the acquisition proceedings not pleaded—Result—No relevant material before State authorities to invoke power u/s. 17(4) for dispensing with Section 5A inquiry while issuing impugned notifications—Effect—The State authorities were not justified in invoking Section 17(4) of the Act for dispensing with enquiry u/s. 5A of the Act—But no opportunity u/s. 5A can be given to appellants on the peculiar facts of these cases. (Paras 15 to 25 & 29)
       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 —Sections 4, 5, 6, 9, 17 and Constitution of India—Articles 226 and 136—Land acquisition for Planned Industrial Development of Ghaziabad District through NOIDA—Contention that appellants’ land have to be treated as immune from acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were having Abadi thereon and were, therefore, governed by the policy decision of the State of U.P. not to acquire such lands—Left open as involved complicated and disputed questions of fact—Question kept open for consideration of the proper State authorities. (Paras 28 & 29)
       (iii) Constitution of India—Art. 136—Land acquisition proceedings—Challenged in writ petition u/Art. 226 in Allahabad High Court—Dismissed — Appeals by Special Leave—Apex Court finding that State authorities were not justified in invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act for dispensing with inquiry u/s. 5A of the Act—Should Apex Court interfere? (No), held the Apex Court should refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 30)
       (iv) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 —Sections 4, 5A and 6 r/w 17 and 48—Land acquisition proceedings—Question of dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A decided in favour of appellants—However, Supreme Court was not inclined to give opportunity u/s. 5A to appellants on the peculiar facts of these cases—The real and the only contention of the appellants for effectively challenging the acquisition proceedings being that since their lands are having abadi they are covered by the existing State policy for not acquiring such lands under Land Acquisition Act—Left open for consideration of appropriate authorities instead of relegating the appellants to the remedy u/s. 5A of the Act—What final order be made?—Liberty reserved to the appellants for filing written representations u/s. 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act—No opinion expressed on merits of future writ petition that may be filed by Intervenor Respondent No. 5 in the High Court—Appeals dismissed accordingly. (Constitution of India —Article 136). (Paras 31, 32, 34 & 35)

Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.—Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.

2. I.A. filed in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 1996 for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No. 37 Mahipal is granted. The title of the Civil Appeal concerned shall be corrected accordingly.

3. By consent of learned senior advocates appearing for the contesting parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 24th August 1995. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants who were petitioners before the High Court who challenged the notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 5th January 1991 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and also the notification under Section 6 of the Act whereby the writ petitioners’ lands situated at village Chhalera Banger then situated in District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh were sought to be acquired. The impugned acquisition was for the planned industrial development of District Ghaziabad through New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (‘NOIDA’ in short), Ghaziabad. As the writ petitions raised a common challenge on diverse grounds, they were all heard together and were disposed of by the impugned common judgment of the High Court. The High Court after considering the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners for challenging the acquisition proceedings, came to the conclusion that the land acquisition proceedings were not vitiated in law and consequently the writ petitions were dismissed. That is how the original writ petitioners are before us in these proceedings. They are now confined to the appellants in these 8 Civil Appeals arising from Special Leave Petitions filed by the original writ petitioners concerned.

4. Before we deal with the main contentions canvassed by learned senior counsel, Shri Shanti Bhushan, appearing for appellants in some of the appeals, and Shri Uma Dutta, learned counsel for appellants in other appeals, it will be necessary to note a few background facts leading to these proceedings.

Introductory Facts.

5. NOIDA is an authority entrusted with the task of developing lands in the district of Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1976, NOIDA had acquired large tracts of lands in the Ghaziabad district including lands of village Chhalera Banger for the planned industrial development of Ghaziabad. At that stage, the State of Uttar Pradesh, at the instance of NOIDA had invoked the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act as acquisition for the purposes of NOIDA was considered to be of an urgent nature. Thereafter, again in the year 1987, further lands were acquired from the same village for the purpose of NOIDA by the State of Uttar Pradesh issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act on 30th October, 1987. The said notification was issued without invoking Section 17(4) of the Act. After hearing the objections put forward against the acquisition by the objectors concerned, ultimately the State of Uttar Pradesh issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on 14th December, 1989. On that occasion, 353 acres of lands consisting of diverse survey numbers were acquired from the occupants of the lands in village Chhalera Banger. It was thereafter that NOIDA submitted a proposal to acquire the lands under the present acquisition on 14th June, 1988. It also made a written request in this connection on 14th December, 1989 to the State authorities. By a communication dated 14th December 1989 addressed by the Personnel Officer, NOIDA to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, NOIDA, Ghaziabad, it was submitted that 494.26 acres of land of village Chhalera Banger were urgently required for the development of Sector No. 43 and other sectors of NOIDA. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 651

Cases Referred (8)