IMPORTANT POINT
The invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is justified when the government demonstrates a pressing need, and such subjective satisfaction is generally not subject to judicial review unless mala fides are established.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, C.J.

1. The Appellants have challenged acquisition of their property invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The challenge before the learned Single Judge failed, and the Appellants are now before us in appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

2. The property in question is 4.5 ares in re-survey No. 54/69 of Meenachil Village in Kottayam District. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, on 14 July 2009, accorded administrative sanction for 258 works. One of the works was the construction of a drain and footpath, as well as connecting the Ramapuram-Pala road to the River View road. The Assistant Executive Engineer addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer, stating that the proposed road is important in Pala town and that its development is essential to reduce traffic congestion, and considering there would be an administrative delay, Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 be invoked. The District Collector also addressed a letter to the property owner under Section 17(1) of the Act of 1894 on 17 March 2010 (Exhibit P3).

3. Petitioner No. 5 submitted representation on 4 July 2010 (Exhibit P5) which yielded no result. On 5 April 2011, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 (Exhibit P4) was issued for the acquisition of the subject property. The Petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 25860/2011 challenging the rejection of representation dated 4 July 2010, the order dated 17 March 2010 invoking the urgency clause, and notification dated 5 April 2011 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894. Refuting the averments in the Writ Petition, a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 4.

4. The learned Single Judge concluded that Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 was rightly invoked and there was no error in proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the Writ Petition by judgment dated 27 February 2019. Being aggrieved, the Appellants, who are Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5, and the legal heirs of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

5. We have heard Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the Respondents.

6. The main contentions of the Appellants are that firstly, dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 should be resorted to in rare circumstances and in this case, no such circumstances exist. Secondly, there was a delay in granting approval after the sanction. Thirdly, the subject matter of acquisition has undergone a change. The Appellants have relied upon the information given to them pursuant to the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

7. First, we will refer to the relevant statutory provisions and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the parameters of judicial review over the decision of the State Government to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894 - referred to as the urgency clause.

8. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 lays down the procedure for the acquisition of land for public purposes. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, a preliminary notification has to be published in the Official Gazette to the effect that the land in the locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. Under Section 5-A, any person interested in the land which has been notified under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 can object to the acquisition of the land and opportunity has to be given to the objector for being heard. Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 reads thus:

“5A. Hearing of objections:

(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.

(2) Every objectio