Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Jagdish Sahai, J.
RAM SEWAK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ 1856 Of 1960
Decided On : 08/09/1961
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - PARTICULARITY OF LAND - URGENCY - SECTION 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - GUIDING FACTOR - DELEGATION OF ESSENTIAL LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS - SECTION 17(4) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the U. P. Government notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging that it was invalid due to the absence of plot numbers and names of the affected persons, and that the notifications under Sections 4 and 17 were published simultaneously. They also contended that Section 17 of the Act was ultra vires as it gave unguided discretion to the Collector to dispense with the provisions of Section 5a of the Act, thereby infringing Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was valid as it complied with the requirement of mentioning the locality in which the land was being acquired. However, the notification under Section 6 was held to be invalid for lack of particularity, as it did not provide sufficient details to identify the specific land being acquired. The court further held that Section 17 of the Act was not ultra vires as it provided sufficient guidance to the appropriate Government in deciding whether to direct the Collector to take possession of waste or arable land, and that the delegation of power under Section 17(4) did not amount to delegation of essential legislative functions.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was valid despite the absence of plot numbers and names of the affected persons? 2. Whether the simultaneous publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act was permissible? 3. Whether Section 17 of the Act was ultra vires for giving unguided discretion to the Collector to dispense with the provisions of Section 5a of the Act, thereby infringing Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the delegation of power under Section 17(4) of the Act amounted to delegation of essential legislative functions?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was valid as it complied with the requirement of mentioning the locality in which the land was being acquired. The law does not require the notification to mention the specific plots or the names of the persons whose land is sought to be acquired. 2. The court held that there was no simultaneous publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act, as the notification under Section 4 was issued on March 17, 1960, while the composite notification under Sections 6 and 17 was issued on March 23, 1960. 3. The court held that Section 17 of the Act was not ultra vires as it provided sufficient guidance to the appropriate Government in deciding whether to direct the Collector to take possession of waste or arable land. The existence of urgency is the guiding factor, and the determination of urgency is left to the objective consideration of the appropriate Government. 4. The court held that the delegation of power under Section 17(4) of the Act did not amount to delegation of essential legislative functions, as the policy of law and legal principles had already been enacted by the legislature, and the executive was only entrusted with the task of determining the details and manner of execution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the notification dated March 20, 1960, under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, due to its invalidity. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THESE are three connected writ petitions and arise out of land acquisition proceedings going on in village Gohand, pargana Rath, in the district of Hamirpur. The substantial prayer of the petitioners is for the quashing of the U. P. Government notification No. A-1632/xiia-663/60 dated March 17, 1960, and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to enforce the aforesaid notification. The said notification is under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It is not necessary at this stage to mention the allegations made in the petition, the affidavit filed in support of it, the counter affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit. I shall deal with the relevant allegations in these documents while considering the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) MR. Sapru has made the following submissions:
(1) The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued in this case are invalid because the numbers of the plots have not been mentioned therein.
(2) The present proceedings suffer from the defect that notifications under Sections 4 and 17 of the Act were published simultaneously.
(3) Section 17 of the Act is ultra vires inasmuch as it gives unguided discretion to the Collector to dispense with the provisions of Section 5a of the Act and thus infringes Article 14 of the constitution of India.
( 3 ) I will consider the submissions seriatim: The notification under Section 4 of the Act which is dated 17th of March, 1960 (Annexure II) reads as fellows:
"under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) the Governor is pleased to notify tor general information that the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed for a public purpose. (2) The Governor, being of opinion that the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the said Act arc applicable to the land, is further pleased under Sub-section (4) of the said section to direct that the provisions of Sees. 5a of the Act shall not apply. Schedule district Pergana Village Approximatearea in acres. Hamirpur rath gohand 31. 50 acres. For what purpose required: for the opening of Government Seed Multiplication Farm. "
The notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 23rd of March 1960, reads as follows:"with reference to this department notification. No. 1629/xii-A. 660-60, dated March 17, 1960 issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) the governor is pleased to declare under Section 6 of the Act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for public purpose and, under Section 7 of the Act to direct the Collector of Hamirpur, to take order for the acquisition of the said land.
2. The case being one of urgency, The Governor is further pleased under Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act, to direct the Collector of Hamirpur though no award under Section 11 has been made, may on the expiration of the notice mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 9, take possession of the land, being waste or arable land mentioned in the schedule for public purposes. SCHEDULE approximate area in For what purpose requireddistric Pargan Villa acrest a ge 1 2 3 4 5 rath 31. 05 For the opening of hamir Goh Government Seed purandmultiplication Farm. "
( 4 ) IT is clear that in the two notifications mentioned above neither the number of the plots nor the names of the persons whose plots are sought to be acquired have been mentioned. All that is mentioned is the total area of the land to be acquired and the village, pargana and the district. The short question, therefore, for consideration is whether such a notification is in conformity with the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act read as follows:
"4. (i) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect
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
