SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 388

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Munshi Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2356 of 1968, 1139, 1140, 1475, 1476 and 1785 of 1971 and 1888 of 1970, D/- 23-8-1972.

Headnote:

Acquisition Act – Section 3,5A, 6 and 17 - Regulation Act – Section 4 and 4(1) – Land - U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 received assent of President - Notification was issued by U. P. Government declaring regulated area under S. 3 of the aforesaid Act - Controlling Authority under S. 4 of Regulation Act was constituted - Notification was issued under S. 4 of Land Acquisition Act by State Government declaring its intention to acquire land measuring about acres in fifty villages for planned development of area - This was followed by successive piece-meal notifications on various dates - Another notification was issued under S. 4 of Acquisition Act modifying earlier notification- By this notification proposed area from acres was reduced - Whether land was adapted for purposes for which it was sought to be acquired – Held, court need only point out that Acquisition Act did not originally provide for filing or hearing of objections to proposed acquisition - It was only by Amending Act 38 of 1923 which came into force that S. 5A was inserted in Acquisition Act - Up to that time view was that wishes of owners of the land were wholly irrelevant but after insertion of Section 5A position has completely changed and it cannot be said that owner s wishes are not relevant and that he does not need an opportunity to file his objections - For reasons given these appeals must succeed and are hereby allowed - Entire acquisition proceedings in respect of lands of appellants in all the appeals are hereby quashed - In matters of this nature court would have taken due notice of laches on part of appellants while granting the above relief but court are satisfied that so far as present appellants are concerned they have not been guilty of laches, delay or acquiescence at any stage - Appellants shall be entitled to costs in this Court. C. M. Petition is disposed of by observing that it will be open to the party to file a suit for damages, if any, if so advised - Appeals allowed.

Judgment

GROVER, J. :- These appeals from the decision of the Allahabad High Court involve a common point and shall stand disposed of by this judgment.

2. It is necessary to state the facts only in C. A. 1888 of 1970. The U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 received the assent of the President on October 8, 1958. On December 10, 1958 a notification was issued by the U. P. Government declaring Ghaziabad a regulated area under S. 3 of the aforesaid Act. In February 1959 the Controlling Authority under S. 4 of the Regulation Act was constituted. On July 16, 1960 a notification was issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government declaring its intention to acquire land measuring about 34,000 acres in fifty villages of Ghaziabad for planned development of the area. On December 23, 1961 a notification was issued under Ss. 6 and 17 of the Acquisition Act in respect of an area of 19.75 acres. This was followed by successive piece-meal notifications on various dates in 1962 and 1963. On February 9, 1962 another notification was issued under S. 4 of the Acquisition Act modifying the earlier notification dated July 16, 1960. By this notification the proposed area from 34,000 acres was reduced to 6158 acres. On July 4, 1962 the appellants made an application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer Ghaziabad for supplying a copy of the scheme of the planned development for which notification under S. 4 had been issued to enable them to make representations at the hearing of the objections filed under S. 5A of the Acquisition Act. It was mentioned inter alia in that application that the Government had not published the scheme of the planned development and without a copy of the scheme for which the notification had been published "no forceful arguments could be submitted". The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the following order on that application :

"The scheme of the planned development is not necessary for a notification under S. 4 of the Act, as such, no such scheme of the planned development is available in this office".

On September 4, 1962 the State Government sanctioned the Master Plan of Ghaziabad under the Regulation Act. On September 27, 1962 a writ petition was filed by the appellants in the High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid notifications. Several other writ petitions were also filed by other petitioners. On December 10, 1965 a batch of 39 writ petitions including the appellant s petition were allowed by the High Court and the notifications under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act were quashed on the ground of invalidity of piecemeal notifications. Another batch of writ petitions was similarly allowed quashing the notifications under Sec. 6 of the Acquisition Act on the same ground On February 9, 1966 this court decided in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, (1966) 3 SCR 557 that piecemeal and successive notifications under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act was not permissible. On February 20, 1967 the President of India promulgated the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance No. 1 of 1967. The validity of this Ordinance apart from the legality of the notifications issued was challenged in the High Court by the appellants in February 1967. In April 1967 an Act was passed on the same lines as the Ordinance. The provisions of the Act were also challenged before the High Court by necessary amendment in the writ petitions filed by the appellants. This Court in Udai Ram Sharma v. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 41 upheld the validity of the Acquisition Amending Act of 1967. On March 26, 1968 the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. In view of the judgment of this court the High Court repelled the contentions of the appellants impugning the validity of the Acquisition Amendment Act 1967. Another point which was agitated before the High Court was that the notification under S. 4 was too vague and afforded no adequate basis for the lodging of o






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top