1967 Supreme(Del) 184

High Court Of Delhi
J.W.BENON - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 538 of 1967
Decided On : 11/08/1967

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(1), 17(4) - NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER - CHALLENGED - HELD, NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(1) AND 17(4) OF THE ACT ARE ILLEGAL AND INVALID - WRIT ISSUED QUASHING THE NOTIFICATIONS, AWARD AND ALL OTHER ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(1), 17(4) - NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER - CHALLENGED - HELD, NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(1) AND 17(4) OF THE ACT ARE ILLEGAL AND INVALID - WRIT ISSUED QUASHING THE NOTIFICATIONS, AWARD AND ALL OTHER ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.

Fact of the Case:

THE petitioners owned buildings including shops and business cum-residential flats, situate in the area of Kothi Manali, Pahti Nasogi, in Tehsil and District Kulu. The said properties are located in a central and prized commercial area, being part of and adjacent to Manali Bazar, and were stated to be a choice piece of estate from the commercial point of view. ON 1st June, 1965, the Punjab Government notified by a Notification No. 1119-2ue-65/16501, dated 1st June, 1965 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that it appeared to the Governor of Punjab that land was likely to be required to be taken by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for planned development of the area of village Kothi Manali Pahti Nasogi, Tehsil and District Kulu, and that it was, therefore, notified by the said Notification that the land in the locality specified in the Notification was likely to be required for the said public purpose. It was also stated in the said Notification that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Governor of Punjab was pleased to authorise the officers, for the time being engaged in the undertaking with their servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey any land in the locality and do all other acts required or permitted by that Section. It was further stated in the Notification that in exercise of the powers under the said Act, the Governor of Punjab was pleased to direct that action under Section 17 (1) of the said Act should be taken in the case on the ground of urgency, and that the provisions of Section 5a shall not apply in regard to the acquisition in question. The said direction that the provisions of Section 5a shall not apply to the acquisition was obviously made under Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, though it was not so stated expressly. Various Khasra Numbers were specified at the end of the Notification as being the plots in the locality sought to be acquired. ON the same date, the Government of Punjab issued another Modification No. 1171-2ue-65/16504 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, by which it was declared that the Governor of Punjab was satisfied that the land comprising the various Khasra numbers specified at the end of the Notification was needed by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for tie planned development of the area of Kothi Manali, Pahti Masogi, Tehsil and District Kulu, and that the said land was required for the aforesaid parpose. It was farther directed that nr. der the provisions of Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Collector, Directorate of Urban Estates, Chandigarh, should take older for the acquisition of the said land. It was further stated in the said Notification that in view of the urgency of the acquisition, the Governor of Punjab, in exercise of the powers under section 17 (1) of the said Act, was pleased to direct that the Land Acquisition Collector, Directorate of Urban Estates, Chandigarh, should proceed to take possession of the land specified in the Notification in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (1 ). THE various Khasra numbers mentioned in the aforesaid Notification? were admittedly owned by the petitioners, and by the two aforesaid Notifications which purported to have been issued under Sections 4, 6, 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act, the land comprised in the said Khasra numbers was declared as required for the public purpose mentioned in the Notifications, the procedure under Section 5a was made in applicable, and the Collector was directed to proceed to take possession of the land.

Finding of the Court:

THE impugned Notifications, in so far as they were issued under section 4 of the Act, cannot be said to have been issued in accordance with the provisions in the said section. Section 6 (1) of the Act expressly provides that- "when the appropriate Government is satisfied, under section 5a. subsection (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. " The requirement of this section also, viz. that the declaration should be made under the signature of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer, duly authorised to certify the orders of the Government, which is obligatory, has not been shown to have been emplied with or satisfied in the case of the two impugned Notifications, and the said Notifications cannot be regarded to have been issued in accordance with the provisions in section 6 (1) of the Act The impugned Notifications, in so far as they were issued under sectioin 14 and 6 of the Act, have therefore to be held to be illegal for these reasons also.

Issues: 1. Whether the Notifications issued under Sections 4, 6, 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act are illegal and invalid? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the restoration of possession of the land in question?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The land in question cannot be regarded as waste or arable land within the meaning of section 17 (1) or section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, even though some of the buildings which originally stood fell down and only the materials existed on a portion of the land in question. 2. The Government had no jurisdiction to apply the provisions of sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act to the land in dispute, and that the two impugned Notifications applying the said provisions of sections 17 (1) and 17 (4) of the Act are illegal and invalid. 3. The impugned Notifications, in so far as they were issued under section 4 of the Act, cannot be said to have been issued in accordance with the provisions in the said section. 4. The requirement of section 6 (1) of the Act, viz. that the declaration should be made under the signature of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer, duly authorised to certify the orders of the Government, which is obligatory, has not been shown to have been emplied with or satisfied in the case of the two impugned Notifications, and the said Notifications cannot be regarded to have been issued in accordance with the provisions in section 6 (1) of the Act.

Final Decision: WRIT ISSUED QUASHING THE NOTIFICATIONS, AWARD AND ALL OTHER ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS.