Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Gopalakrishnan & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Rep. by Ministry of Food, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 11974, 11975 & 12634 of 2008
Decided On : 18-04-2022
Land Acquisition - Urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act - The court quashed the impugned Notification issued u/s 4 (1) and the consequential Declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act due to the lethargic act of the State in not starting the project even after a lapse of a decade and a half, rendering the invocation of the provision of Section 17 (4) an excessive use of power. The project for which the lands were sought to be acquired necessitated the invocation of the urgency power u/s 17 (4) by dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A, but the State's inaction rendered the invocation of the provision excessive.
Fact of the Case:
The Union Government proposed to acquire dry lands for the construction of a reservoir across Koilmalayar. The petitioners challenged the acquisition, alleging that the urgency clause u/s 17 (4) was invoked without taking possession of the lands and without allotting funds for the project. They also claimed that the Government did not dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A, rendering the acquisition unlawful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) was excessive due to the State's inaction in starting the project even after a decade and a half. It held that the project's urgency had evaporated, rendering the invocation of Section 17 (4) unsustainable. The court quashed the impugned Notification issued u/s 4 (1) and the consequential Declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the acquisition, particularly the invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) and the dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A. The petitioners alleged that the acquisition was not in consonance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the project necessitated the invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) by dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5-A, the State's inaction in starting the project rendered the invocation excessive. It emphasized that the urgency provision denies the substantive right of the landowner and cannot be allowed to be done under the guise of urgency.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the writ petitions by quashing the impugned Notification issued u/s 4 (1) and the consequential Declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act. It granted liberty to the respondents to proceed with acquisition by issuing a fresh notification.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: W.P. No.11974 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned Section 4 (1) Notification in reference in G.O. Ms. No.30 PW(T1) Dept., dated 1.2.06 and the impugned Section 6 Declaration in reference G.O. Ms. No.48 PW (T1) dated 27.2.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequent impugned award Na.Ka.B1/9411/2005 dated 24.4.2008 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the said notifications on the file of the 2nd respondent and impugned award on the file of the 4th respondent as null and void and has become lapsed and to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition in respect of the land comprised in S. No.178/4 of an extent of 0.22.0 Hectares situated at No.28, Melarasampattu Village, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District.
W.P. No.11975 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned Section 4 (1) Notification in reference in G.O. Ms. No.30 PW(T1) Dept., dated 1.2.06 and the impugned Section 6 Declaration in reference G.O. Ms. No.48 PW (T1) dated 27.2.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequent impugned award Na.Ka.B1/9411/2005 dated 24.4.2008 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the said notifications on the file of the 2nd respondent and impugned award on the file of the 4th respondent as null and void and has become lapsed and to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition in respect of the land comprised in
| Survey No. | Hectares |
| S. No.177/2 | 0.71.0 |
| S.177/5 | 0.20.0 |
| S. No.179/6 | 0..92.0 |
| S. No.179/11 | 0.61.0 |
| Total | 2.44.0 |
and joint patta lands in S. No.177/1, 177/3, 179/3A, 179/2A, 179/4 of total extent of 0.17.5 Heactares situated at Melarasampattu Village, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District.
W.P. No.12634 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned Section 4 (1) Notification in reference in G.O. Ms. No.30 PW(T1) Dept., dated 1.2.06 and the impugned Section 6 Declaration in reference G.O. Ms. No.48 PW (T1) dated 27.2.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and consequent impugned award Na.Ka.B1/9411/2005 dated 24.4.2008 on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the Notification in reference in G.O. Ms. No.30 PW(T1) Dept., dated 1.2.06 and the impugned Section 6 Declaration in reference G.O. Ms. No.48 PW (T1) dated 27.2.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the impugned award in reference Na.Ka.B1/9411/2005 dated 24.4.20087 on the file of the 4th respondent as null and void and has become lapsed and to forbear the respondents from proceeding with the land acquisition in respect of the land comprised in
| Name | Survey No. | Hectares |
| C. Mohan | 177/6 | 2.58.0 |
| G.Kutty | 177/4A | 0.13.0 |
| K.Ramajayammal | 177/4B | 0.06.5 |
| A.Kuppan | 179/1 | 0.04.5 |
| 1. E.Kuppammal | 179/2C | 0.30.0 |
| D.Dasarathan | 182/1 | 1.58.0 |
| M.Ranganayaki | 182/3 | 0.91.0 |
| Mohan | 177/1 | 0.09.0 |
| Kutty | 177/3 | 0.02.0 |
| K.Ramajayammal | 177/3 | 0.02.0 |
| 1. E.Kuppammal | 179/4 | 0.04.5 |
| 1. Kupp |
AI
The excessive use of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, due to the State's inaction in starting the project, rendered the invocation of the provision unsustainable and viol....
The invocation of the urgency provision u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A of the Act, is not justified in cases where the acquisition is for an indust....
The court established that non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act invalidates acquisition proceedings, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for justifying the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, the burden of proof on the party ....
The invocation of urgency provisions in land acquisition must be justified by genuine emergencies; significant delays undermine such claims and violate the right to object.
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 n....
The main legal point established is that the acquisition proceedings can lapse under Sec. 11A of the Land Acquisition Act if the award is not passed within the specified period. Additionally, the cou....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
