2007 Supreme(Del) 1340

High Court Of Delhi
VIKRAMAJIT SEN,J. P. SINGH
ESSEX FARMS P. LTD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
W. P. (C) 1289 Of 1990
Decided On : 07/09/2007

The invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, must be based on sufficient material made available to the appropriate Government to enable it to arrive at an informed and well-considered decision.

Headnote:

The Court held that the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, must be based on sufficient material made available to the appropriate Government to enable it to arrive at an informed and well-considered decision. The Court further held that the Government or the concerned authority must grant a personal hearing to the interested person and that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is minimal when this procedure is adhered to.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, was conducting its business from Essex Farms for the last fifty years. On 8th June 1990, the High Court had restrained the respondents from taking possession of the land of the Petitioner bearing khasra Nos. 127, 128, 131 and 286/133 measuring 11 bighas 12 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Kalu Serai, Delhi. These interim orders were subsequently made absolute. The notification, Annexure P-IX, reads as follows: delhi ADMINISTRATION : DELHI (LAND and BUILDING DEPARTMENT) notification dated : 19-2-1990 no. F. 9 (5)/79-Landb (i) :- Whereas it appears to the Lt. Governor, Delhi that the land is likely to be required to be taken by Govt. at the public expense for a public purpose, namely for Planned Development of Delh. e. Shopping Centre and widening of Mehrauli Road, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required for the above purpose. This notification is made under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, to all whom it may concern. In exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid section, the Lt. Governor, Delhi is pleased to authorise the officer 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. The Lt. Governor being of the opinion that provisions of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the said Act are applicable to this land, is further pleased under sub-section 4 of the said section to direct that the provisions of section 5-A shall not apply. By Order sd/- ( V. RAMNATH) special SECRETARY (L and B) delhi ADMINISTRATION : DELHI ( 3 ) IN the writ petition it has been asseverated that the Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and that it is conducting its business from Essex Farms for the last fifty years, which was initially notified for acquisition for public purpose vide Notification dated 13. 11. 1959 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the "planned Development of Delhi". This notification was followed-up by a Declaration dated 11. 1. 1969 issued under section 6 of the Act. It has been asserted that, by virtue of the amended provisions contained in Section 11-A of the Act as introduced into the statute in 1984, these actions would automatically lapse should the Land Acquisition collector fail to publish an Award on or before 23. 9. 1986. The Petitioner alleges that the Delhi Administration had issued instructions to the Deputy commissioner of Delhi not to acquire lands which are fully built-up and for this reason, after conducting a joint survey it was recommended that the said land be released from acquisition proceedings, which was so done on 23. 9. 1986. It is further contended that despite the fact that the land had remained under acquisition for about 27 years the Respondents had issued the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act thereby nullifying and taking away the statutory right of the Petitioner to file objections under Section 5a of the Act. It is asserted in the petition that the Lt. Governor had not adequately applied his mind while issuing a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act and that in any event the "planned Development of Delhi (PDD)" is not a purpose which justifies invocation of Section 17 of the Act. The Notification is challenged as being a colourable exercise of power, having been issued without application of mind, with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. The Petitioner's protestation is that various other properties constructed alongside the existing road, namely, Aurobindo Marg, and in alignment with Essex Farms land have not been acquired. So far as the creation of a Shopping Centre is concerned the petitioner alleges that a number of such establishments have already come into existence in the environs, thus satiating this need.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, must be based on sufficient material made available to the appropriate Government to enable it to arrive at an informed and well-considered decision. The Court further held that the Government or the concerned authority must grant a personal hearing to the interested person and that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is minimal when this procedure is adhered to.

Issues: 1. Whether the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, is justified without sufficient material to support the decision. 2. Whether the Government or the concerned authority is required to grant a personal hearing to the interested person before invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, must be based on sufficient material made available to the appropriate Government to enable it to arrive at an informed and well-considered decision. The Court reasoned that the Government has the power to take possession of land in urgent circumstances, but this power must be exercised fairly and reasonably. The Court further held that the Government must provide a personal hearing to the interested person before invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in order to ensure that the decision is made in a fair and just manner. 2. The Court held that the Government or the concerned authority must grant a personal hearing to the interested person before invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court reasoned that the right to be heard is a fundamental principle of natural justice and that the Government must give the interested person an opportunity to present their case before making a decision that will affect their property rights.

Final Decision: The Court held that the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispenses with the requirement of inviting and considering objections under Section 5A, must be based on sufficient material made available to the appropriate Government to enable it to arrive at an informed and well-considered decision. The Court further held that the Government or the concerned authority must grant a personal hearing to the interested person and that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is minimal when this procedure is adhered to. The Court directed the Government to grant the Petitioner an opportunity to file Objections under Section 5A within thirty days from the date of the order and to dispose of the Objections within 30 days.