SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(All) 98

High Court Of Allahabad
V.K. Khanna, S.R. Singh, JJ.
Chameli Singh
Vs.
State Of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15377 of 1983
Decided on: 5th February, 1993

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Virendra Singh

The provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, which allow the government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A in cases of urgency, are valid and can be invoked in cases where the land is being acquired for the urgent purpose of providing house sites to landless agricultural labourers of scheduled caste/tribes, village artisans etc.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(1), 17(1-A), 5-A - URGENCY CLAUSE - DISPENSING WITH SECTION 5-A ENQUIRY - PRE-NOTIFICATION DELAY - JUDICIAL NOTICE OF URGENCY FOR HOUSING LANDLESS AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS - NO MALA FIDE ACQUISITION - ACQUISITION UPHELD.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that the provisions of Section 5-A, which require an enquiry before acquisition, were illegally dispensed with, and that there was no urgency for the acquisition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Act, which allow the government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A in cases of urgency, were validly invoked in this case, as the land was being acquired for the urgent purpose of providing house sites to landless agricultural labourers of scheduled caste/tribes, village artisans etc.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act were illegally dispensed with. 2. Whether there was urgency for the acquisition of the land.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of Section 17(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, which allow the government to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5-A in cases of urgency, were validly invoked in this case, as the land was being acquired for the urgent purpose of providing house sites to landless agricultural labourers of scheduled caste/tribes, village artisans etc. 2. The court held that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act could be invoked by the Government looking to the urgency in the matter of providing house sites to the landless agricultural labourers of scheduled caste/tribes, village artisans etc. and that the court can take judicial notice of the fact that in such cases the urgency clause could be invoked by the Government.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the acquisition of the land was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation.

Judgment

V.K. Khanna, J.

1. In these two connected writ petitions the land of the petitioners has been acquired under a common notification issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act Learned counsel for the parties have prayed that these two cases may, be taken together as the questions of law involved in both the cases are common. These two writ petitions ere thus being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. According to the petitioners of writ petition no, 15377 of 1983 they are co-bhumidhars and in possession of plot no, 16 area 5 bighas 6 biswas 14 biswansis situate in village Bairam Nagar, Pargana Nahtaur Tahsil Dhampur district Bijnor. According to them on a portion of this plot the petitioners' pucca residential house exists for the last 20 years in which the petitioners and their family members are living. A tube well also exists on the plot in dispute. According to the petitioners they have planted a grove over a portion of the plot which has about 150 mango, guava, papaya, Aadoo trees. Banana and other fruit bearing trees. The State Government had taken a decision to acquire land for rural housing and in that connection the Tahsildar had made a report on 3-8-1979 that it was necessary to acquire 2 bighas 5 biswas land of plot no. 16 m. of the petitioners. According to the petitioners even though proposal for acquisition had been made by the Tahsildar on 3-8-1979. the notifications under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act thereinafter described as the "Act") dated 30-4-1983 was published for the first time in the U.P. Gazette dated 23-7-1983 and the notification under section 6 of the Act dated 31-5-1983 was also published in the U.P. Gazette on 23-7-1983. From the notification under section 4 of the Act it was clear that the provisions of section 17(1) and (1-A) of the Act had been applied and the provisions of section 5-A have been dispensed with. According to the petitioners there was no urgency for acquisition of the petitioners' land as the State Government had decided in June 1979 for acquiring the land and the Tahsildar had made a report on 3-8-1979 but the Government slept over the matter for about four years and has illegally dispensed with the requirement of provisions of section 5-A of the Act.

3. It was also urged that the petitioners' pucca residential houses are situated In the land in question and that the petitioners and their family members are living and a tube well also exists over the same and the enquiry under section 5-A of the Act could not legally be dispensed with and the impugned notifications are illegal as the plot could not be considered to be waste and arable land and cannot be acquired under the impugned notification.

4. As far as writ petition no. 15376 of 1983 is concerned, the petitioner Paltu Singh alleged himself to be the Bhumidhar in possession of plot no. 197 area 2 Bigha 4 Biswas 10 biswansis situate in village Mohammadpur Sultan district Bijnor. Out of this plot 1 bigha 4 biswas 10 biswansi of land of the petitioner has been acquired under the impugned notification. Similar grounds have been alleged for challenging the notification as in writ petition no. 15377 of 1983, though the petitioner in this writ petition has not alleged that there is any Abadi or grove of the petitioner over the land acquired. Counter affidavits practically on similar lines have been filed in these two writ petitions. In so far as writ petition no 15377 of 1983 is concerned, it has been specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavits that the petitioners 1 and 3 are the co-tenure holders of 5 Bighas 6 Biswas 14 dhurs of plot no. 16 m. which is entered as plot no. 16/2 in Khasra extracts. Petitioner no. 2 is the tenure holder of 2 bighas 9 biswas 10 dhurs of lot no. 16 m which is recorded as plot no. 16/1 in the Khasra 15 Biswas from plot no. 16m of which the petitioners 1 and 3 are co-tenure holders has been acquired and 1 Bigha 10 biswas of plot no. 16m has been acquired from t

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top