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

2011 Supreme(SC) 266

2011 (4) SCC 769
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ
Dev Sharan & Ors.
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2334 OF 2011, 2335 OF 2011
Decided On: March 7, 2011

Headnote:A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.19(1)(f), Art.300(a), LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.17(4), S.3(f), S.5(a), This appeal is against the order of High Court of Allahabad in respect aof a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition for acquiring agricultural land for the declared public purpose of constructing District Jail of Jahangirpur. The agricultural lands were acquired doing away the mandatory requirement of hearing objection under Section 5(a) raising urgency clause. Held on merits that there is no urgency as can be seen that the matter had been pending for several years and all of a sudden the Government acquired agricultural lands doing away this statutory requirements. The necessity of examining executive action depriving constitutional rights under Article 300(a) through the constitutional prism was stressed. Notification under Section 17 of the Act doing away with the procedure of calling for objections was quashed.

       IMPORTANT POINT: The valuable right of the appellants under Section 5A of the Act cannot flattened and steamrolled on the `ipsi dixit of the executive authority.

JUDGMENT

GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 25.11.2009 in Writ Petitions (Civil) No.46457/2009.

2. The appellants challenge the acquisition of their agricultural lands by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of the district jail of Shahjahanpur. The appellants themselves are bhumidar with transferable rights and are residents of village Murchha, tehsil Puwayan in the district of Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The State of Uttar Pradesh vide its office memorandum dated 25.10.2004 constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister of Revenue to suggest its recommendations for transfer of prisons situated in the congested areas of various districts. After conducting its second and final meeting on 10th January, 2005, the said committee recommended to the State Government the shifting of the district jails from congested areas to outside the city limits within the district.

4. As per the schedule, this shifting was to be done in two phases:

1st phase

1. District Jail, Shahjahanpur;

2. District Jail, Azamgarh;

3. District Jail, Jaunpur; and

4. District Jail, Moradabad.

2nd phase

1. District Jail, Badaun;

2. District Jail, Varanasi;

3. District Jail, Barielly; and

4. District Jail, Muzaffarnagar.

5. The existing district jail of Shahjahanpur, constructed in 1870, was one of the oldest and required shifting to a new premises. The Government case is that the district jail is located in a densely populated area of the city and is overcrowded, housing as many as 1869 prisoners, while having a capacity of only 511.

6. Thereafter, the State Government constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. vide office memorandum dated 12.9.2007 to evaluate and consider the shifting of prisons identified to be shifted in the first phase. Prisons in the districts of Lucknow, Moradabad were added to the list. This committee was also to evaluate and recommend the means for modernisation of existing old prisons. In its meeting dated 10.10.2007 the committee recommended that a Detailed Project Report (DPR) be prepared by the Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, and that acquisition of lands for shifting of the prisons be done on a priority basis.

7. These recommendations were accepted by the State Government vide the approval of the cabinet dated 7.12.2007. Following this 4 decision, the Director General of Prisons (Administration and Reforms), Uttar Pradesh, vide letter dated 04.06.2008, requested the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur to send all the relevant records to the State Government for publication of notification under Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter `the Act'). The land suggested for such acquisition by the Divisional Land Utility Committee was one admeasuring 25.89 hectares (63.93 acres) in village Morchha, tehsil Puwayan in the district of Shahjahanpur.

8. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur forwarded the proposal to the Commissioner and Director, Directorate of Land Acquisition (Revenue Board, Uttar Pradesh), for the issuance of notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17 of the Act, 5 which in turn approved of it and further forwarded the recommendation to the State Government, vide letter dated 2.07.2008.

9. Thus, the State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17 on 21.08.2008. However, the provisions of Section 5A inquiry were dispensed with. The State Government explained that this was done in view of the pressing urgency in the matter of construction of the jails.

10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notifications, the appellants moved a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in its decision dated 25.11.2009 refused to interfere with the selection of the site for the construction of the jail premises on the ground that it was not required to do so unless it found the selection












































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