IMPORTANT POINT
Right under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c),5 – A – Issuance of Notification by State of Haryana for acquisition of land of appellants for construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant – Notification indicated that land was required on an urgent basis within the meaning of Sub – Section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, thereby excluding application of Section 5 – A of the said Act-Challenge thereagainst – Held in the instant case, Court was not concerned with technicalities but the likelihood of a health – hazard to the inhabitants of the area if the STP was set up in the acquired site – The stand taken by the respondent that appellants could have filed objections to the proposed acquisition was difficult to appreciate since the right to file such objections had, in fact, been taken away by invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of L.A. Act – Such a stand taken on behalf of respondent authorities only strengthened case of appellants that an opportunity ought to have been given to them to file objections to proposed acquisition-Right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution – Since Section 5 – A of the L.A. Act had been dispensed with, the stage under Section 9 was arrived at within six months from the date of the notice issued under Section 4 and 17(2)(c) of L.A. Act – While such notice was issued on 23.11.05 Award under Section 11 was made on 23.05.06 -During this period, appellants filed a suit, and, thereafter, withdrew the same and filed a writ petition in an attempt to protect their constitutional right to the property – It could not, therefore, be said that there was either any negligence or lapse or delay on the part of appellants – Again evidence on record showed that site was still lying unutilized – In such circumstances, held proper to give opportunity to appellants to file their objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5 – A of the L.A. Act-Appeal disposed of (Paras 21 to 27)
       Facts of the Case :
        A Notification was issued by State of Haryana for acquisition of land of appellants for construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant herein in the instant case.Notification indicated that land was required on an urgent basis within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, thereby excluding application of Section 5-A of the said Act.
        2. Issue in consideration in present case was whether exclusion of application of Section 5-A of the said Act was justified in facts and circumstances of case.
       Findings of the Court :
        Held in the instant case, Court was not concerned with technicalities but the likelihood of a health-hazard to the inhabitants of the area if the STP was set up in the acquired site. The stand taken by the respondent that appellants could have filed objections to the proposed acquisition was difficult to appreciate since the right to file such objections had, in fact, been taken away by invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of L.A. Act. Such a stand taken on behalf of respondent authorities only strengthened case of appellants that an opportunity ought to have been given to them to file objections to proposed acquisition. Right under Section 5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Since Section 5-A of the L.A. Act had been dispensed with, the stage under Section 9 was arrived at within six months from the date of the notice issued under Section 4 and 17(2)(c) of L.A. Act. While such notice was issued on 23.11.05 Award under Section 11 was made on 23.05.06 .During this period, appellants filed a suit, and, thereafter, withdrew the same and filed a writ petition in an attempt to protect their constitutional right to the property. It could not, therefore, be said that there was either any negligence or lapse or delay on the part of appellants. Again evidence on record showed that site was still lying unutilized. In such circumstances, held proper to give opportunity to appellants to file their objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act. Appeal was disposed of

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein are residents of Narwana, District Jind, in the State of Haryana and claim to be the owners of land measuring 34 Kanals 2 Marlas situated at Jind Patiala Road near the Railway Crossing, Narwana, adjoining the New Grain Market at Narwana. Subsequent to the acquisition of certain lands in the said area in 1995, the State of Haryana issued another Notification dated 23rd November, 2005, bearing No.12/8/05-PH 1, under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “L.A. Act”), for construction of a Sewage Treatment Plant. In the said Notification, it was indicated that the land was required on an urgent basis within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the L.A. Act, thereby excluding the application of Section 5-A of the said Act. According to appellants while invoking the emergent provisions under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act, no reason was indicated to exclude the operation of Section 5-A of the Act. The said Notification under Section 4 was followed by another Notification dated 2nd January, 2006 under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. In the said Notification it also was made clear that the Land Acquisition Collector-cum- District Revenue Officer, Jind, Haryana proposed to take possession of the land in question as the land was to be acquired urgently.

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the State Government to acquire the land for construction of the Sewage Treatment Plant, the Mitaso Educational Society Narwana, filed a suit against the State of Haryana to restrain the defendant therein, including the State of Haryana from constructing the Sewage Treatment Plant in front of the school and on 15th February, 2006, an interim order was passed in the suit restraining the defendants from constructing the said Plant as the same was likely to be a health-hazard for the inhabitants of the locality. In yet another civil suit filed by one Jagroop against the State of Haryana, the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Narwana, restrained the defendants by its order dated 12th April, 2006 from constructing the Sewage Treatment Plant.

4. Having been denied the opportunity of filing an objection under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act, the appellants also filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the two Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act on several grounds. One of the grounds taken was that the lands in question could not be used for the installation of a Sewage Treatment Plant owing to its close proximity to the residential colony, the New Grain Market and a school in the adjoining plots. Furthermore, an earlier Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act in the year 1995 had also been challenged in Civil Writ Petition No.1222 of 1997 before the High Court, wherein an order of status quo was passed on 28th January, 1997. It has been submitted that the said writ petition is still pending disposal in the said High Court. In the subsequent writ petition out of which this appeal arises, the appellants herein, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the two Notifications dated 23rd November, 2005 and 2nd January, 2006 issued under Section 4 read with Clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 and Section 6 of the L.A. Act, 1894 on the ground that the same were arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. A prayer was also made for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents in the writ petition not to dispossess the appellants herein from the land in question.

5. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 14th February, 2008. Negating the contention of the appellants/writ petitioners that they had been wrongly deprived of their right to file an objection to the proposed acquisition of their lands under Section 5-A of the L.A. Act, the Writ Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 4 read with Section 17 had been reli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1626

2009(7) Supreme 507SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAltamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.Babu Ram & Anr. — AppellantsversusState of Haryana & Anr. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 6864 of 2009(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.14302 of 2008)Decided on : 07-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINTRight under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (5)

2009(7) Supreme 507
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
Babu Ram & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6864 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO.14302 of 2008)
Decided on : 07-10-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Right under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.