The court upheld the validity of the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 based on the genuine urgency for the acquisition as demonstrated in the affidavit-in-opposition.

Judgment

This writ appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 13-4-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 44(SH) of 2003 whereby said court has dismissed the writ petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged notifications dated 5-1-2001 and 16-1-2001 issued by Govt. of Meghalaya under Section 4 and under Section 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner/appellant resides in Bashistha Road, Beltolla, Guwahati, District Kamrup with her children after the death of her husband. (Late) Chittaranjan Baruah (husband of the appellant), before his death owned properties including the property known as 'Maxwelton Estate' situated at Kench's Trace, Laban, Shillong which consisted of 2 plots, one measuring 8.73 acres and another 1.5 acres. Said property was inherited by the writ petitioner/appellant, Smti. Krishna Baruah and her children, on the death of her husband on 17-8-1991. A house was constructed over one of the plots by one Shri J.N. Bawri, Power of Attorney holder over a part of the land in question. The State of Meghalaya vide notification No. RDA. 1/2001/39, dated 5-1-2001 declared under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that the land Maxwelton Estate, Kench's Trace, Shillong is required for public purpose and is to be acquired with the boundaries shown in the schedule as under:

North: Stream

South: P.W.D. Road.

East: P.W.D. Road.

West: Land of (L) B.K. Dey and Smti. Rajashree Bhattacharjee.

3. The State of Meghalaya thereafter invoking its power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 expressed urgency of the project whereby the right of the petitioner to file objections under Section5A of the Act was curtailed. Said notification was also published in the Extra Ordinary Gazette of Meghalaya dated 5-1-2001. On 16-1-2001, a public notice was issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in terms of notification dated 5-1-2001. On 19-1-2001, a declaration was made by the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that the land in question was acquired by the Government for public purpose namely, construction of office complexes of the State Government in the aforesaid land. The said declaration was published in English daily namely, Shillong Times on 20-1-2001. On this, the writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 44(SH) of 2003, (Old No. 505 of 2001) challenging the notifications issued by the Government for acquisition of the land mentioned above. Interim order was obtained on 24-1-2001 in said writ petition.

4. The respondents contested the writ petition before the Single Judge, and filed affidavit-in-opposition. It is stated in said counter affidavit that Maxwelton Estate was in occupation of Shri. J.N. Bawri who constructed a residential house and the appellant actually stays in Guwahati and Nagoan with her children. As to the urgency and the public purpose, it is stated in the counter affidavit that Ministry of Defence had requested the State Government to vacate their land. As such, the offices of Meghalaya State Home Guards, Sericulture & Weaving Departments were immediately required to be shifted. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that since the offices of the Commissioner of Taxes and that of the Commissioner of Excise were also required to be shifted from the land which was required by the Law Department of the State for construction of the High Court building at Shillong, the acquisition and invocation of urgency clause became imminent. It is also pleaded in the affidavit-in-opposition that since the appellant (writ petitioner) had herself surrendered her rights to the Power of Attorney holder who raised the construction, as such, she has practically no grievance against the acquisition.

5. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge agreed with the