Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, JJ.
Balbir Singh & Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.& Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 12138 of 1982
Decided On : 05-05-2016
Land Acquisition - Urgency Clause - Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 5-A, Section 17 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly focusing on Section 5-A and Section 17. It highlighted the importance of the right to file objections under Section 5-A and the exceptional circumstances required to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17. The court emphasized the need for the government to apply its mind and produce relevant material to justify the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A. The judgment also underscored the gravity of compulsory acquisition of private property and the need for careful exercise of eminent domain power by the state. The court ultimately quashed the notifications that dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A and directed the respondents to proceed with the acquisition process in accordance with the law.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, proposing to acquire their land for the construction of a Government Polytechnic Institute. They argued that dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A was illegal and arbitrary due to lack of urgency and planning. The respondents claimed urgency for immediate acquisition of land, but failed to provide relevant material to justify the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 was illegal and a colorable exercise of power. It quashed the notifications that dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A and directed the respondents to proceed with the acquisition process in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 was justified in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the right to file objections under Section 5-A and the exceptional circumstances required to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17. It highlighted the need for the government to apply its mind and produce relevant material to justify the dispensation of inquiry under Section 5-A. The judgment underscored the gravity of compulsory acquisition of private property and the need for careful exercise of eminent domain power by the state.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notifications that dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A and directed the respondents to proceed with the acquisition process in accordance with the law.
Sudhir Agarwal and Shamsher Bahadur Singh,JJ.
1. Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Chaudhari, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing notifications dated 31st July 1982 published in U.P. Gazette dated 2nd October 1982 issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1894') proposing to acquire certain land at Etawah for the purpose of construction of a building of Government Polytechnic Institute, Etawah. He has also challenged notification dated 6th August 1982 published in U.P. Gazette dated 2nd October 1982 issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of Act, 1894.
3. The ground of challenge is that dispensation of enquiry under Section 5-A is illegal and arbitrary. There was no urgency and since possession of land belong to petitioners has not been taken by respondents, hence acquisition notifications are illegal.
4. The dispute relates to Khata No. 36, plot no. 264 (area 3.09 acres), 280 (area 4.57 acres) belong to petitioners; Khata No. 272 plot no. 227 (area 1.09 acres) belong to petitioner no.4 and Khata No. 92 plot no. 262 (area 0.10 acres) belong to petitioner no.1 and one Yogendra Singh. It is said that construction of Government Polytechnic Institute is a complex project. Government has not earmarked any fund for construction of building and yet it has invoked urgency clause for dispensing enquiry under Section 5-A, which shows total non-application of mind. Further, State proposed acquisition of a total area of about 24.63 acres of land for which a plan lay out for construction of building and other development is necessary and nothing has been done in this regard still invoking urgency clause, enquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with.
5. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed sworn by petitioner 1 on 30th September 1997, stating therein that during pendency of writ petition, Act, 1894 has been amended and Section 11-A has been inserted in the year 1984. The disputed land belong to petitioners and is still in their possession in view of interim order passed on 8.11.1982. A copy of letter dated 16th May 1996 sent by Special Land Acquisition Officer (in short 'SLAO') addressed to Principal, Government Polytechnic, Etawah has also been placed on record, wherein it has been said that for want of amount of compensation it is not possible to make award of land, acquired for the purpose of said Polytechnic, and he required to furnish a cheque/draft for Rs.3 lacs towards estimated compensation. He also informed that for the purpose of Government Polytechnic, Vidhuna, District Etawah, a sum of Rs.3,75,740/- was made available to SLAO on 19th September 1995 but Government now, vide letter dated 29th March 1996, has informed of its idea of dropping construction of Government Polytechnic at Vidhuna, therefore, if otherwise funds are not available, the said amount furnished in respect of Government Polytechnic, Vidhuna may be permitted to be utilised for the purpose of payment of compensation in respect to land, acquired for Government Polytechnic, Etawah. Another letter dated 24th April 1997 sent by Principal, Government Polytechnic, Etawah to Director, Technical Education, U.P. Kanpur has also been placed on record, wherein it was informed that seven writ petitions challenging acquisition at Etawah have been filed in High Court and in respect thereto, for want of funds for payment of compensation, award has not been made till date. It therefore, requested Director to either furnish funds separately or permit utilisation of funds already remitted to SLAO in connection with Government Polytechnic, Vidhuna. Referring to aforesaid two letters, it has been suggested that acquisition commenced in 1982 and amount of compensation was not available for making award to SLAO, till 1996/9
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
