IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land for public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise of power of eliminating enquiry under Section 5-A in terms of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the LA Act.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 32-Acquisition of 28.804 hectares of land in the district of Ghaziabad for public purpose of planned development of Leather City Project by invoking the urgency provision under the LA Act- Writ petition filed by petitioners challenging Notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 for acquiring their lands by invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act-Plea of petitioners that declaration of Notification dated 18.12.2007 under Section 6 was beyond period of limitation of one year from date of publication of Notification under Section 4, as mandated by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the LA Act-Period of limitation commenced from 04.07.2006, the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act- If the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is made before the expiry of the period of one year starting from 04.07.2006, then, only such declaration will be considered as valid for the purpose of the acquisition of land- However, in the present case, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.2007 which was clearly beyond period of limitation of one year as mandated by proviso to Section 6(1) of LA Act- Hence, declaration of Notification under Section 6 and its subsequent publications were clearly beyond period of limitation of one year starting from date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of LA Act- Writ Petitions allowed (Paras 10, 11)
        Constitution of India,1950-Article 32-Acquisition of 28.804 hectares of land in the district of Ghaziabad for public purpose of planned development of Leather City Project by invoking the urgency provision under the LA Act- Writ petition filed by petitioners challenging Notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 for acquiring their lands by invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act-Plea of petitioners that invoking of urgency provision under Section 17(4), by respondents in absence of any real urgency amounted to illegal deprivation of right to file objection and hearing of appellants and inquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act-Instantly ,evidence on record showed that government functionary had proceeded at very slow pace at two levels, that is, prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4 and post the issuance of Notification under Section 4, for acquisition of land for construction of Leather City Project, which undoubtedly was a public purpose-This exhibited lethargical and lackadaisical attitude of State Government- Hence held that respondents were not justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17 of the LA Act, thereby, depriving appellants of their valuable right to raise objections and opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to persuade them that their property may not be acquired (Paras 17, 21)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. 28.804 hectares of land was acquired herein in the instant case in the district of Ghaziabad for public purpose of planned development of Leather City Project by invoking the urgency provision under the LA Act.
        B. Writ petition was filed by petitioners challenging Notifications issued under Section 4 and Section 6 for acquiring their lands by invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act. Plea of petitioners that declaration of Notification dated 18.12.2007 under Section 6 was beyond period of limitation of one year from date of publication of Notification under Section 4, as mandated by proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the LA Act.
        C. It was further contended that invoking of urgency provision under Section 17(4), by respondents in absence of any real urgency amounted to illegal deprivation of right to file objection and hearing of appellants and inquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act.
       Findings of the Court :
        A.Notification under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.2007 and Notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.07.2006 and the same was published in two daily newspapers in Hindi language on 04.07.2006 having circulation in the locality where land was situated. Also, the people in Ghaziabad district were well conversant with Hindi language. Subsequent publication of English translation of said Notification under Section 4 in two newspapers on 05.01.2007 was unnecessary . Hence, last date of publication for purpose Section 4(1) of the LA Act, which could be treated as date of publication, was the date on which, second Notification under Section 4 was published in the newspaper, that is, 04.07.2006.Hence, period of limitation commenced from 04.07.2006, the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act.
        B.If the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act is made before the expiry of the period of one year starting from 04.07.2006, then, only such declaration will be considered as valid for the purpose of the acquisition of land. However, in the present case, declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.12.2007 which was clearly beyond period of limitation of one year as mandated by proviso to Section 6(1) of LA Act. Hence, declaration of Notification under Section 6 and its subsequent publications were clearly beyond period of limitation of one year starting from date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of LA Act.
        C. Evidence on record showed that government functionary had proceeded at very slow pace at two levels, that is, prior to issuance of Notification under Section 4 and post the issuance of Notification under Section 4, for acquisition of land for construction of Leather City Project, which undoubtedly was a public purpose.This exhibited lethargical and lackadaisical attitude of State Government. Hence held that respondents were not justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17 of the LA Act, thereby, depriving appellants of their valuable right to raise objections and opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to persuade them that their property may not be acquired .Writ Petitions were allowed.

JUDGMENT

H.L. Dattu, J.

1) The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Notification dated 03.7.2006 issued under Section 4 and the Notification dated 18.12.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the LA Act”) for acquiring their lands for a planned development of the Leather City Project in order to relocate bone mills and allied industries by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the LA Act.

2) This Court is monitoring the re-location of the bone mills and allied industries in the various parts of State of Uttar Pradesh including the district of Ghaziabad in the public interest proceedings, which were initiated in the year 1994. Since then, this Court has time and again issued various orders and directions including inspection of polluting bone industries in Ghaziabad by the U.P. Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the UPPCB”) and Central Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “the CPCB”). This Court, vide its Order dated 17.08.2004 in the Civil Appeal No. 3633-3634 of 1999 (U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Anil K. Karnwal & Ors.), which is still pending before us, had directed the respondents to relocate the bone mills and allied industries as per the recommendations of the CPCB and further directed the respondents to identify the definite area suitable for relocation of the said industries. Pursuant to this Order, the respondents had filed an affidavit before this Court in the month of December, 2004, inter alia, proposing the Leather City Project for relocation of the said bone industries.

3) In this backdrop, the respondents had issued a Notification dated 03.7.2006 under Section 4 read with Section 17 (4) of the LA Act for acquisition of 28.804 hectares of the land at village Imtori, Chitoli, Sabli of Hapur- Pargana in the district of Ghaziabad for the public purpose of planned development of the Leather City Project by invoking the urgency provision under the LA Act, thereby, dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act. The same was published in two daily Hindi newspapers on 04.07.2006. Subsequently, the English version of the said Notification was also published in two daily newspapers dated 24.01.2007. The relevant part of the Notification is extracted below:

“The Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of Notification No. 1588/VIII-3-2006-183 LA-2005, dated July 03, 2006:

No. 1588/VIII-3-2006-183 LA-2005 Dated Lucknow, July 3, 2006

Under subsection (1) of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), the Governor is pleased to notify for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule below is needed for the public purpose namely, for construction of Leather City Scheme at Villages-Chitoli, Sabli and Imtori, Pargana-Hapur, district-Ghaziabad by the Hapur-Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Hapur.

The Governor being of the opinion that provisions of subsection (1) of section 17 of the said Act are applicable to the said land in as much as the said land is urgently required for construction of Leather City Scheme at Villages-Chitoli, Sabli and Imtori, Pargana-Hapur, district-Ghaziabad by the Hapur-Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Hapur under planned development Scheme, it is as well necessary to eliminate to delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under section 5-A of the said Act the Governor is further pleased to direct, under subsection (4) of section 17 of said Act, that the provisions of section 5-A shall not apply.”

4) Thereafter, the respondent had issued a Notification dated 18.12.2007 under Section 6 read with Section 17 (1) of the LA Act, whereby, it directed the Collector of Ghaziabad to take possession of the said land on the expiry of 15 days from the date of publication of the Notice under Section 9(1) even though no award has been made under Section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 798

IMPORTANT POINT Acquisition of land for public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise of power of eliminating enquiry under Section 5-A in terms of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the LA Act.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land for public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise of power of eliminating enquiry under Section 5-A in terms of Section 17 (1) and Section 17 (4) of the LA Act.