1. Challenge to a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning the validity of the acquisition purpose. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 553
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA, CJI., KULDIP SINGH, S. MOHAN, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA, ANOTHER
Versus
BAL RAM SINGH, ANOTHER
Civil Appeal No. 1509 of 1977, decided on October 9, 1991
Important Points
The creation of a new authority to monitor the purpose of land acquisition does not change the original purpose of the acquisition, and thus does not vitiate a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Subject
Civil Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - Declaration - Validity - Purpose of acquisition - Change in implementing agency - The purpose for which land was initially notified for acquisition is not changed merely because a new authority comes into existence to monitor the same purpose - High Court erred in holding that the declaration was vitiated due to such change. (Para 1)
(B) Land Acquisition - Release of land - Residential house - If the implementing agency cannot demonstrate that leaving out a specific residential property would create difficulties for developmental operations, such property should be released from acquisition. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was challenged. The High Court had quashed the declaration on the grounds that the purpose of acquisition had changed after a new development authority was established to monitor the process. Additionally, one of the respondents sought the release of his residential house and appurtenant land from the acquisition, arguing there was no justification for its inclusion when the purpose was to provide housing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the purpose of the acquisition remained unchanged despite the creation of a new authority. However, since the implementing agency could not indicate that the exclusion of the respondent's residence would create any problem in the matter of developmental operations, the residence and its appurtenant land were to be released.
Issues: Whether the creation of a new authority to monitor the purpose of land acquisition constitutes a change in the purpose itself, thereby vitiating the declaration under Section 6, and whether a residential property should be released if its exclusion does not impede development.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of acquisition is not altered by the mere passage of time or the creation of a new administrative body to oversee the original purpose. Furthermore, residential properties may be released from acquisition if their exclusion does not create operational difficulties for the development project.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Land Acquisition - Release of land - Residential house - If the implementing agency cannot demonstrate that leaving out a specific residential property would create difficulties for developmental operations, such property should be released from acquisition. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was challenged. The High Court had quashed the declaration on the grounds that the purpose of acquisition had changed after a new development authority was established to monitor the process. Additionally, one of the respondents sought the release of his residential house and appurtenant land from the acquisition, arguing there was no justification for its inclusion when the purpose was to provide housing.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the purpose of the acquisition remained unchanged despite the creation of a new authority. However, since the implementing agency could not indicate that the exclusion of the respondent's residence would create any problem in the matter of developmental operations, the residence and its appurtenant land were to be released.
Issues: Whether the creation of a new authority to monitor the purpose of land acquisition constitutes a change in the purpose itself, thereby vitiating the declaration under Section 6, and whether a residential property should be released if its exclusion does not impede development.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of acquisition is not altered by the mere passage of time or the creation of a new administrative body to oversee the original purpose. Furthermore, residential properties may be released from acquisition if their exclusion does not create operational difficulties for the development project.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the establishment of a monitoring authority changed the acquisition purpose and whether a residential house should be excluded from acquisition for housing. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The creation of an authority to monitor the purpose of acquisition does not change the purpose for which the land was initially notified. (Para 1 )
4. A declaration under the Land Acquisition Act is not vitiated by the subsequent creation of an agency to monitor the original acquisition purpose. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal allowed and declaration upheld; however, the specific residential property and appurtenant land are released from acquisition. (Para 1 , 3 )
6. Does the creation of a monitoring authority change the purpose of land acquisition?
No, the purpose for which land was initially notified for acquisition is not changed merely because a development authority is subsequently created to monitor that same purpose. (Para 1 )
7. Under what circumstances can a property be released from a land acquisition process?
A property may be released from acquisition if it is demonstrated that its exclusion would not create difficulties for the developmental operations of the acquiring authority. (Para 2 , 3 )
ORDER
1. Challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the order of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated February 19, 1976 holding that the declaration dated April 3, 1964 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is vitiated and, therefore, quashed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the reasoning given or accepted by the High Court for coming to the conclusion that the declaration is vitiated is wrong. The purpose for which the acquisition had been initially notified is not changed merely because by passage of time the Delhi Development Authority came into existence to monitor the very purpose for which the land had been initially notified to be acquired. The purpose continued to be the same and the High Court went wrong in recording the finding that it was changed. For this reason, we reverse the decision, allow the appeal and hold that the declaration is not open to challenge.
2. Respondent 1 has a different contention to advance, namely, that his is a residential house and the same is on a part of the property to be acquired and there is no justification to include this as a part of the acquisition when the purpose is for providing housing. We had adjourned the matter to give an opportunity to the counsel for the Union of India to indicate to us whether the property of respondent 1 constitutes a pocket which if left out from acquisition might create difficulty for the DDA to operate. He has not been able to indicate to us that if this property is left out any problem would be created in the matter of developmental operation.
3. In these circumstances, we direct that respondent 1s residence and the vacant side appurtenant thereto said to be within the limit of one bigha and eight biswas of land shall be released from acquisition.
4. No costs.
For Citation : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 136.
