1988 Supreme(All) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AMITABH BANERJEE, K. P. SINGH
SATBIR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
W. P. 10551 Of 1985
Decided On : 01/14/1988

The publication of the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be on the same day, as per the amended provisions of the Act.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - SAME DAY - INVALIDITY - U. P. ACT 8 OF 1974 - REPEALED BY CENTRAL ACT 68 OF 1984 - URGENCY - DISPENSATION OF ENQUIRY UNDER S. 5-A - PUBLIC INTEREST - DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DISCRIMINATION AND ARBITRARINESS - BURDEN OF PROOF - U. P. URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1973 - NOT RELEVANT.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which their plots were acquired for the construction of residential/commercial buildings for the people of Meerut on Sardhana Road by the Meerut Development Authority under a planned development scheme.

Finding of the Court:

1. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was invalid as the substance of the two notifications contemplated by Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were given on the same day in the locality, in violation of the amended provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act. 2. The U. P. Act 8 of 1974 was repealed by the Central Act 68 of 1984, and the amended provisions of the Act would be applicable to the cases under consideration. 3. The Government was justified in applying the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act and in dispensing with the enquiry contemplated by the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, considering the urgency of the situation and the larger public interest involved. 4. The acquisition of the petitioners' plots was for public interest, as it was intended to provide housing accommodation to the residents of Meerut City, which was a matter of national urgency. 5. The petitioners failed to establish that the acquisition of their land was discriminatory or arbitrary, or that it was not under a development plan.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was invalid due to the publication of the substance of both notifications under Sections 4 and 6 on the same day? 2. Whether the U. P. Act 8 of 1974 prevailed over the Central Act 68 of 1984 in determining the validity of the notifications? 3. Whether the Government was justified in applying the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act and in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act? 4. Whether the acquisition of the petitioners' plots was for public interest? 5. Whether the petitioners were able to establish that the acquisition of their land was discriminatory or arbitrary, or that it was not under a development plan?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amended provisions of Sections 4, 6, and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, clearly indicate that the publication of the notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 cannot be on the same day. 2. The U. P. Act 8 of 1974 was repealed by the Central Act 68 of 1984, and the amended provisions of the Act would be applicable to the cases under consideration, in accordance with the proviso to Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. 3. The Government was justified in applying the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act and in dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, considering the urgency of the situation and the larger public interest involved, as evidenced by the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the contesting opposite parties. 4. The acquisition of the petitioners' plots was for public interest, as it was intended to provide housing accommodation to the residents of Meerut City, which was a matter of national urgency, as recognized by the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Smt. Pista Devi (AIR 1986 SC 2025). 5. The petitioners failed to establish that the acquisition of their land was discriminatory or arbitrary, or that it was not under a development plan. The allegations in the writ petition were not supported by sufficient evidence, and the petitioners did not demonstrate that their constructions were legally made under sanctioned plans.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed in part. The notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed in each writ petition, but the parties were left to bear their own costs.