IMPORTANT POINTS
Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) is constitutionally valid.
Declaration u/s 6 made earlier but published simultaneously with notification u/s 4. Not invalid. Relevant date is the date of publication.
Amending Act not overruling Radhey Shyam Nigam, merely curing the defects is not invalid.
Compensation as per section 3A is payable in advance on taking possession with the aid of Section 17(2).
Taking over possession without paying compensation or paying short of 80% will not invalidate the whole acquisition proceeding.
If the Legislature indicates a policy which inspires it and the object which it seeks to attain, then the selective application of the law can be left to the discretion of the Executive authority.
After taking over possession by the State, the landlord precluded from questioning validity of the title of the State based on the acquisition.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) – Amendment of section 17(4) – Insertion of Proviso – Simultaneous publication of notification u/s 4(1) and 6(2) in many public schemes – Invalidated by Radhey Shyam Nigam – Amendment needed to save those schemes Section 17(4) amended to provide validity of such simultaneous publications u/s 4(1) and 6(2) – Constitutional validity of the amendment – Amendment required to save several schemes – Amendment not overruling Radhey Shyam Nigam but curing the defect – Section 3 of the Amending Act held valid. (Para 32, 33)
       (1996) 11 SCC 462; (1996) 2 SCC 365; (1963) 2 SCR 775; (1996) 7 SCC 637 – Relied upon
       (1996) 1 SCC 562; (1983) 2 SCC 33; 1986 Supp. SCC 584; (1994) 5 SCC 450; (1976) 1 SCC 843; (2003) 6 SCC 186; (2002) 7 SCC 273; (2005) 2 SCC 409; (2003) 4 SCC 712; (2002) 3 SCC 533; (1992) 2 SCC 494; (1997) 8 SCC 72; (1986) 3 SCC 91; (1990) 1 SCC 277; AIR 1955 SC 830; (1993) 4 SCC 369; (2003) 2 SCC 577; 1957 SCR 533; (2005) 7 SCC 627; (2004) 8 SCC 14; 1952 SCR 435; (1995) 6 SCC 240; (1974) 2 SCC 501; (1998) 6 SCC 1; (1996) 3 SCC 1; (1989) 1 SCC 591; (1995) 6 SCC 16; (2004) 3 SCC 48; (2003) 5 SCC 298; (1978) 2 SCC 50; 1975 Supp. SCC 1; (2004) 12 SCC 588; (1976) 4 SCC 750; (1970) 1 SCC 509 – Referred
       (b) Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) – Section 2 and 3 r/w sections 4 and 6, Land acquisition Act 1894 – Declaration u/s 6 made on 04.12.1984 but published on 08.12.1984 – Contention that section 3 of Amending Act does not remove the defect of making declaration u/s 6 prior to publication of notification under Section 4 – Contention not correct – Section 3 of amending Act seeks to validate illegal declarations made simultaneously with or even prior to publication of Section 4 notification – Added proviso has to be read along with and in the light of Section 3 of the amending Act – Proviso contemplates "publication" of notification – Declaration u/s 6 made earlier but published simultaneously with notification u/s 4 – Not invalid. (Para 36, 38, 39)
       (1996) 11 SCC 462; (1963) 2 SCR 775; (1998) 9 SCC 480; (1996) 2 SCC 365 – Relied upon
       (1997) 8 SCC 47; (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1997) 9 SCC 132; (2002) 1 SCC 538 – Distinguished
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17(4) (as amended in 1991) – Validity – Contention on ground of being ultra vires Article 245 and 246 of the Constitution by overruling ruling in Radhey Shyam Nigam – Amendment not overruling Radhey Shyam Nigam – Merely curing the defects – Legislature competent to make amendment with retrospective operation – Amendment not invalid. (Para 40)
       (1996) 11 SCC 462; (2003) 5 SCC 298; (1969) 2 SCC 283; (2004) 3 SCC 48; (1989) 3 SCC 488 – Relied upon
       (1978) 2 SCC 50; (1995) 6 SCC 16; 1975 Supp. SCC 1; (2004) 12 SCC 588; (1976) 4 SCC 750; (1970) 1 SCC 509 – Referred
       (d) Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) – Section 2 and 3 – Validity – Challenge on ground of being ultra vires Article 300A of Constitution – Contention that by validating the acquisition proceedings retrospectively the amendment has deprived the petitioners of enhanced compensation in fresh proceedings after 1987 – Not shown if petitioners had any right for fresh proceedings – Secondly no benefits had accrued to the petitioners which the amendment took way – The amendment having been held constitutionally valid challenge on this ground also fails. (Para 41, 42, 43)
       (1983) 2 SCC 33; 1986 Suppl. SCC 584; (1994) 5 SCC 450 – Distinguished
       (e) Administration of justice – Reference to larger Bench – Counsel for appellants praying that matter be referred to a larger Bench and formulating six issues for decision – Amending Act already held valid – The issues formulated if decided may result in upsetting large number of acquisition proceedings – Moreover such steps should be taken sparingly – Principle of stare decisis applies – Plea not accepted. (Para 48)
       (1999) 4 SCC 11; (2005) 2 SCC 673 – Relied upon
       (f) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17 – Dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A – Only to enable the State to take possession u/s 17(1) and (2) – Not a condition to pay 80% compensation – Compensation as per section 3A is payable in advance on taking possession with the aid of Section 17(2). (Para 50)
       (g) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17(2) – Possession taken, compensation not paid or is short of 80% – Effect – Whole acquisition proceeding will not be invalidated – Issue being well settled, no need for reference to larger Bench. (Para 51, 52)
       (1993) 4 SCC 369; (1996) 3 SCC 1; (1994) 5 SCC 486; (1995) 6 SCC 31 – Relied upon
       (h) Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) – Section 3 and Proviso added to section 17(4) of the principal Act – Interpretation – Must be read in light of each other – Court not supplying casus omissus. (Para 54)
       (i) Land Acquisition Act (Amendment Act No. 5 of 1991) – Section 3 and Proviso added to section 17(4) of the principal Act – Validity – Article 14, Constitution of India – Whole amending Act already held constitutionally valid by Meerut Development Authority case – Further, nothing in the provisions is arbitrary – Challenge fails. (Para 55, 56)
       (1996) 11 SCC 462; (1995) 6 SCC 243; (1994) 6 SCC 77; (1996) 4 SCC 281; (1994) 1 SCC 92 – Relied upon
       (2000) 5 SCC 488; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (2004) 7 SCC 558; (2005) 6 SCC 404; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (2005) 4 SCC 649; (2002) 4 SCC 578; (1995) 6 SCC 614; (1991) 1 SCC 494 – Distinguished
       AIR 1978 SC 8 – Referred
       (j) Amending Act – Validity – Challenge on ground of unreasonable classification between different schemes – Amendment not making any classification much less unreasonable classification – If the Legislature indicates a policy which inspires it and the object which it seeks to attain, then the selective application of the law can be left to the discretion of the Executive authority. (Para 60)
       AIR 1952 SC 75; 1953 SCR 30; 1959 SCR 279; (1979) 1 SCC 380 – Referred
       AIR 1952 SC 235; AIR 1951 SC 41; AIR 1952 SC 123; AIR 1980 SC 319 – Distinguished
       (k) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17 – Validity – Questioned on ground of arbitrariness – Power to dispense with enquiry u/s 5A – Not unbridled and uncanalised – Sufficient guidelines in place – Criteria of emergency provided u/s 17(2) – Separate and distinct from the criteria of urgency – Provide clear guidelines – Provision not constitutionally invalid – No necessity of a notice before taking possession u/s 17. (Para 61, 62)
       (1995) 2 SCC 497; (1986) 4 SCC 251; AIR 1968 SC 870; AIR 1956 SC 44; 1959 SCR 279; AIR 1970 SC 150; AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1986 SC 180; AIR 1985 SC 1416 – Relied upon
       AIR 1962 ALL 221; AIR 1963 All 24 – Cited with approval
       AIR 1954 SC 545 – Distinguished
       (l) Section 17 – Urgency clause invocation of – Whether justified – Satisfaction of the executive as regards urgency – Borne out from records – No infirmity. (Para 64)
       AIR 1967 SC 1081; AIR 1977 SC 183; AIR 1984 SC 1721; (1986) 4 SCC 251; (1995) 2 SCC 497 – Relied upon
       AIR 1978 All. 181 – Cited with approval
       (m) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Policy of not acquiring land belonging to co-operative society – Still government acquiring such land – No infirmity if State action is bona fide – High Court approving the same – No fault. (Para 65)
       (n) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4, 6 and 17 – Possession – Dispute regarding fact of taking over possession – As per records possession taken on 21.5.1985 – Panchnama supporting possession available on record – A few plots handed over to LDA on 30.3.1986 – Dispute irrelevant in view of the whole township standing on the property today. (Para 66, 67)
       (o) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4(1) – Land transfer by sale deed one day after notification u/s 4(1) – Landlord precluded from questioning validity of the title of the State based on the acquisition. (Para 68)
       (1996) 3 SCC 124; (1996) 11 SCC 698 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:
       All these cases relate to land acquisition. Various issues have been raised in these appeals and connected writ petitions.
       In some of the Writ Petitions, constitutionality of provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(1)(A), 17(3)(A), 17(4) and proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act alongwith Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994, so also constitutionality of Sections 3(A), 3(B), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act was challenged.
       In other writ petitions notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act was challenged. In yet some other petitions award u/s 11 was challenged.
       All these petitions were disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court’s judgment affirmed.
       Result:
       All appeals dismissed.

Judgment :-

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.

Background of Appeals

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998, 3162 of 1998, 3176 of 1998, 3415 of 1998, 3561 of 1998, 3597 of 1998, 3923 of 1998, 3939 of 1998, 3645 of 1998, 3691 of 1998, 5346 of 1998, 2116-2118 of 1999, 2139 of 1999, 2121 of 1999, 2113 of 1999, 4995-4996 of 1998 and SLP(C) No...(CC) 1540 of 1999. All these appeals and the Special Leave Petition challenge a common judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, disposing of several Writ Petitions. The High Court has granted certificate granting leave to file appeal. These Writ Petitions were filed covering various subjects. Basically, in some of the Writ Petitions, constitutionality of provisions of Sections 17(1), 17(1)(A), 17(3)(A), 17(4) and proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act for short) alongwith Section 2 of the

U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994 (hereinafter called `the Validating Act for short) was challenged, so also constitutionality of Sections 3(A), 3(B), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act was also challenged. In that set of Writ Petitions, basically, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the award dated 25.2.1987 were in challenge.

1.2. In some other Writ Petitions, besides the challenge to the above mentioned provisions, some other notifications dated 30.12.1995, 25.1.1992, 4.1.1992 and 15.12.1992 under Section 4(1) of the Act, as well as, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act were in challenge.

3. In some Writ Petitions, the petitioners prayed for a Writ of mandamus, commanding the State of U.P. to frame necessary rules and regulations in respect of Sections 11, 11A and 17(3)(A) of the Act pertaining to the functioning of the Land Acquisition Officer and also sought for an injunction restraining the authorities from interfering with the possession of the Writ Petitioners land and to comply with the provisions under Sections 3(1A), 3(B), 4(2), 5 and 9(1) of the Act. They have also prayed for a disciplinary action against the Station Officer, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow,

U.P.

4. These are the three sets of Writ Petitions, which came to be disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment.

5. In one of the Writ Petitions, bearing No. 16(L/A) of 1996 filed by one Ram Bharosey, award dated 25.2.1987 which was validated in pursuance of Section 2 of the Validating Act, was in challenge.

6. In still another set of Writ Petitions, Pratap Housing Cooperative Society and some industries prayed for exempting their land from the land acquisition proceedings. In these Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitioners had contended that they had purchased their land from tenure holders for Cooperative Societies for providing land to their members and construction of the houses. The Writ Petitioners contended that some being industries were manufacturing certain articles and their running business had come to the standstill because of the land acquisition activities.

7. In one set of Writ Petitions, it was found that notifications were issued under Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, simultaneously with the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In these cases, the possession was taken by Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as `LDA for short), so also the award was passed on 25.2.1987.

8. In another set of Writ Petitions, wherein the leading Writ Petition was W.P. No. 2220 (L/A) of 1996 filed by Tika Ram & Anr., the notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 17 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act simultaneously. However, they were treated to be lapsed and a fresh notification came to be issued on 30.12.1991 under Section 4(1) and 17 of the Act. Even in these Writ Petitions, the awards were passed and the concerned persons were asked to receive payment of 80% compensation by a general notice. In short, the challenge generally was to the land acquired at the instance of LDA. Besides this challenge t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1554

Cases Referred (86)