Back
[2007(9) ADJ 447 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND RAKESH SHARMA, JJ.
Smt. MANJU LATA AGRAWAL ......Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 2251, 37128, 37878, 38014, 38766, 40330, 42021 of 2007 and 52851 of 2006, decided on 20th September, 2007)
(B) Acquisition of land—‘Public purpose’ for—Cannot be defined precisely—It requires determination on basis of facts and circumstances of each case—Government is the best judge to decide whether certain purpose would come within ambit of ‘public purpose’—Object which is of general interest constitutes public purpose but it may change with time and prevailing circumstances—Development of residential area—Has now recognised to be within ‘public purpose’—There is only limited scope of judicial review by Court on ‘public purpose’—Court, if finds that purpose of acquisition is merely a colourable exercise of power, it can interfere—But once acquisition is found to be for public purpose, it cannot be invalidated only on ground that authority concerned has diverted use of land. [Paras 11 to 14]
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 5-A, 6, 17 (1) and 17 (4)—Dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A—Delay in—Even if results in further delay in declaration under Section 6 or invokement of urgency provisions under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4)—Not fatal—As such, would not invalidate acquisition proceedings—Satisfaction of Government for invokement of provisions of Sections 17 (1) and 17 (4)—Is subjective in nature—May take time—Only thing is that satisfaction should be bona fide. [Paras 27, 30, 34 and 38]
(D) Precedents—Conflict or inconsistency between judgments of Supreme Court—Judgment of Larger Bench is to be followed. [Para 33]
(E) Judicial review—Scope of—Is limited to correction of errors of law and fundamental procedural errors leading to cause manifest injustice—Non consideration of relevant meterial in recording a finding which renders it perverse and makes it against law—Also comes within scope of judicial review—For subjective satisfaction authority is required to pass reasoned order—Several other relevant features connected with judicial review—Also ventilated. [Paras 39, 40, 43, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56 and 60]
(F) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Inquiry under Section 5-A and invokement of urgency provisions of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Questions of—Has to be determined by Government—Role of Court is limited to extent of examining as to whether powers has been exercised in bona fide or mala fide manner—Land is acquired for public purpose—Court is, thus, examine acquisition keeping in view as to whether acquisition satisfies requirements of law and is for public purpose. [Paras 43, 61, 66, 70 and 71]
(G) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 17(1) and 17 (4)—Acquisition of land—For construction of residential Coloney—Applying urgency provisions and dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A—Found bona fide from materials on record—Construction of residential Coloney is a public purpose—Persons deprived of from possession of their land—Offered financial assistance and providing with equivalent area of land of some other place—No error committed in acquisition. [Paras 75, 81, 82, 84 and 86]
(H) Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Section 48—Constitution of India—Article 226—Order refusing to release land—Writ petition against—Not maintainable—High Court cannot sit in appeal against that order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. [Para 90]
Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—In all these writ petitions land acquisition proceedings, initiated under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), have been challenged on various grounds. As all the petitions raises same questions of facts and have been heard together, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases are that Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette dated 13.7.2006 for planned development of land measuring 67.829 hectares in revenue estate of Surakhbanga, Pargana Vrindavan, District Mathura. The urgency powers under Section 17 (1) and 17 (4) were invoked. Inquiry envisaged under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 26.7.2007, and substance thereof was published in the local newspapers; subsequently, on 28.7.2007, in respect of the entire land notified under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 67.829 hectares. Hence these petitions.
3. We have heard S/Shri R.N. Singh, Gaurav Banerji, S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Senior Counsel with S/Shri Anurag Khanna, M.K. Gupta, C.B. Yadav, Smt. Manju R. Chauhan, Mukhtar Alam, Punit Kumar Gupta, for the petitioners, Shri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sunita Agrawal for the Development Authority, and S/Shri P.S. Chauhan and Ramesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
4. It has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the land has been notified for establishing a residential colony by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (hereinafter called the Development Authority) which is not a public purpose. The land use of most of the lands under Notification and Declaration has been shown as reserved for Maths and Ashrams in the existing Master Plan, as prepared by the Development Authority, and duly approved and notified by the State Government. Therefore, acquisition for some other purpose is not permissible. There was no material before the State Government to show that it was a case of grave urgency and limited right of persons interested to file objections under Section 5-A be dispensed with, particularly, when the Declaration under Section 6 has been made on the last date of limitation prescribed under the Act; Section 4 Notification had been issued after having correspondence and deliberations for about 2-3 years, and thus, there has been pre-notification and post-notification delay on the part of the State Government. Dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act is a colourable exercise of power just to cover the lethargic attitude/inaction of the State Government. There is nothing on record to show that the Government had ever passed an order applying its mind and recording a finding that there was a grave urgency, and thus, inquiry under Section 5-A be dispensed with. Thus, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In one of the writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 40330 of 2007) additional grounds had been raised that all the petitioners therein are scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. There are Government notifications exempting their land from acquisition and even their applications for releasing their land under Section 48 of the Act had been rejected. Thus, proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondents’ Counsel that there is an urgent need for acquiring the land. Mathura being a religious city, there has been already a demand for accommodation for all purposes, i.e., for residences, Ashrams and Maths etc. The Development Authority had been demanding from the State Government that the land be acquired and given to it to cater the need of persons willing to settle in Mathura considering its religious and spiritual importance. Large number of public representatives made representations on behalf of the persons interested before the State Government that the land in dispute should not be acquired.
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
