IMPORTANT POINTS
Even after invoking section 17(1) and 17(2) opportunity of filing objections u/s 5A can still be afforded.
Section 17(4) can still be invoked even if opportunity is afforded u/s 5A after invoking section 17(1) or (2).
Payment of compensation after taking over possession u/s 17(4) would not invalidate acquisition.
If possession is taken after due notice to the land owners and the possession is not symbolic, acquisition cannot be interfered with.

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17 – Sections 17(1) and 17(2) on the one hand and Section 17(4) on the other operating in two different fields – Even after invoking section 17(1) and 17(2) opportunity of filing objections u/s 5A can still be afforded – Invocation of section 17(4) on the other hand empowers State to dispense with requirement of affording opportunity u/s 5A and take possession prior to making of the award – Section 17(4) can still be invoked even if opportunity is afforded u/s 5A after invoking section 17(1) or (2). (Para 16)
       AIR 1964 SC 1217; (2004) 8 SCC 14; (2009) 2 SCC 377 – Relied upon
       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 17(4) – Payment of compensation after taking over possession u/s 17(4) – Would not invalidate acquisition. (Para 18)
       (2009) 10 SCC 689 – Relied upon
       (c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 6 – Records showing due service of notice to land owners for handing over possession – Notice served on 10th March, report of notice submitted to authority on 16th March, and possession taken on 17th March – No evidence to show that possession was symbolic – No infirmity. (Para 19)
       (2012) 1 SCC 792 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       Land was notified for acquisition for the purpose of expansion of secretariat on both sides (North/South) of the existing secretariat in Dehradun. The urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act was also invoked and enquiry under Section 5A of the L.A. Act was dispensed with in exercise of power under Section 17(4).
       Pursuant to High Court direction, the land owners filed their objections but as the same pertained to the quantum of compensation to be awarded the same were left open for consideration at an appropriate stage. The writ petition filed by the appellant land-owners was dismissed by the High Court.
       The objections under Section 5A appear to have been rejected on merit. Thereafter on 14th March, 2005 the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act was issued. Notice to handover possession was issued to the land-owners on 10th March, 2006 and report of service of the said notices was submitted to the concerned authority on 16th March, 2006. Thereafter the possession of the land was taken on 17th March, 2006. The said possession was taken in exercise of powers under Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act which provision had already been invoked by the Notification dated 5th May, 2004 under Section 4 of the Act. Compensation, as required under Section 17(3A) i.e. 80% was, however, deposited in Court on 18th April, 2006.
       No award could be passed as in the meantime Writ Petition No.196 of 2006 was instituted and interim orders were passed therein. The said writ petition was allowed by which the acquisition in question was set aside by the High Court.
       However then challenge to the same acquisition by an individual land-owner was negatived by the High Court.
       Thus the State of Uttarakhand and the individual land owner have filed these two Civil appeals.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned acquisition does not suffer from any fundamental flaw or illegality.
       Result: Civil Appeal No.6900 of 2009 allowed and Civil Appeal No.6901 of 2009 dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

1. The Civil Appeals arise out of two separate orders passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the matter of acquisition of land for the purpose of expansion of the Uttaranchal Secretariat. While Civil Appeal No.6901 of 2009 arises out of the judgment and order dated 23rd December, 2005 of the High Court dismissing the challenge to the acquisition made by the appellant land-owner on grounds to be noticed herein below, Civil Appeal No.6900 of 2009 arises out of another judgment and order dated 1st March, 2007 by which the impugned acquisition has been interfered with by the High Court.

2. A brief conspectus of the relevant facts may now be set out.

By notification dated 4th May, 2004 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the L.A. Act") the land mentioned in the schedule thereto was notified for acquisition for the purpose of expansion of secretariat on both sides (North/South) of the existing secretariat in Dehradun. By means of the aforesaid notification the urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act was invoked and furthermore enquiry under Section 5A of the L.A. Act was dispensed with in exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the L.A. Act. The acquisition was subjected to a challenge before the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition No.469 of 2004 which was disposed of by the order of High Court dated 30th October, 2004 in the following term:

"In these three writ petitions, particularly in writ petition No.469 of 2004 (M/B) 874 of 2004 (M/B) the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been challenged. So also challenge is to the notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act by applying the urgency clause. In writ Petition No. 840 of 2004 (M/B) there is a common challenge to the notification which provides for the acquisition of the land for extension of the Secretariat as also for the expansion of the road. These notifications are different.

Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, Senior Advocate, in his usual fairness has shown readiness to hear the petitioners or as the case may be the persons interested. Instead of going ahead with the urgency clause and more particularly dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A. In view of the statement made, Mr. Naithani, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners withdraws the writ petitions, so far as challenge to the notification dated 5.5.2004 is concerned.

In view of the urgency felt, we feel that it will be better for us to fix the programme. Public notice shall, therefore, be given within seven days from today inviting the objections. The concerned Land Acquisition Officer, who is to hear the objection, shall hear them within fifteen days. All the objections shall be filed before the Land Acquisition and the Land Acquisition Officer shall dispose of the matter one way or the other after giving full opportunity of hearing, etc. by December, 2004 or as the case may be earlier thereto.

With this, we dispose of the Writ Petition No.469 of 2004.”

3. Consequent to the aforesaid order of the Court all the land-owners who were affected by the acquisition notification submitted their objections which were heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector. Insofar as the appellant in Civil Appeal No.6901 of 2009 is concerned, it appears that the aforesaid appellant had filed his objections after the expiry of the time stipulated by the High Court in the aforesaid order dated 30th October, 2004. Despite the same his objections were considered on merits and as the same pertained to the quantum of compensation to be awarded the same were left open for consideration at an appropriate stage. The writ petition filed by the appellant land-owners was dismissed by the High Court.

4. Insofar as the other land-owners are concerned, the objections under Section 5A of the L.A. Act appear to have been rejected on merit. Thereafter on 14th March, 2005 the declaration under Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 627

Cases Referred (5)