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

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 3(f) – Public purpose – Cannot remain static for all time to come – Definition in section 3(f) becoming inclusive – Application must be consistent with Directive Principles – Public purpose should also be judged by expanded view of Part III of the Constitution – Such concept of public purpose has to be read into section 17 of the Act. (Para 16 to 18)
       (1979) 3 SCC 466 – Relied upon
       (b) Interpretation of statutes – Expropriatory legislation like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Should be construed strictly. (Para 20)
       (2003) 5 SCC 622; JT 2003 (7) SC 257 : (2003) 7 SCC 336; JT 2007 (7) SC 352 : (2007) 8 SCC 705 – Relied upon
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – Read conjointly with Article 300-A of the constitution – Right u/s 5A should be interpreted as being akin to a Fundamental Right – Must be strictly complied with. (Para 33)
       AIR 1964 SC 1217; (1973) 2 SCC 337; JT 2005 (8) SC 470 : 2005 (7) SCC 627; JT 2008 (12) SC 315 : (2009) 2 SCC 377 – Relied upon
       7 C.W.N. 249 – Referred
       (d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17 – Even in cases of urgency enquiry contemplated by Section 5-A cannot ipso facto be dispensed with – Section 17(4) cannot be invoked by officers negligent and lethargic in initiating acquisition proceedings – Acquisition proceedings from notification u/s 4 and 17 to notification u/s 6 taking about one year – Not indicating any urgency requiring invocation of section 17. (Para 35, 38)
       JT 2008 (12) SC 315 : (2009) 2 SCC 377; JT 2004 (7) SC 526 : (2004) 8 SCC 14 – Relied upon
       (e) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A and 17 – Construction of jail is in public interest – However, does not require invoking section 17. (Para 40)
       Facts of the case:
       The State Government issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A inquiry. The State Government explained that this was done in view of the pressing urgency in the matter of construction of the jails.
       The appellants moved a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere with the selection of the site for the construction of the jail premises. The High Court also approved the invoking of emergency provisions under Section 17 of the Act. The High Court thus dismissed the writ petition.
       Finding of the Court:
       The valuable right of the appellants under Section 5A of the Act cannot be flattened and steamrolled on the `ipsi dixit’ of the executive authority.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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. 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 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 Murchha, 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, 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 of the site was whol

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAG.S. Singhvi & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.Babu Ram Dixit v. State of U.P. & Ors.AndDev Sharan & Ors.Vs.State of U.P. & Ors.Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8939/10 With Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10993/10 Decided On : 07 March, 2011

IMPORTANT POINTThe valuable right under Section 5A of the Act cannot be flattened and steamrolled on the `ipsi dixit’ of the executive authority.

Cases Referred (9)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Babu Ram Dixit
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
And
Dev Sharan & Ors.
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8939/10 With Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10993/10
Decided On : 07 March, 2011

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