A.P. SAREEN AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 210 · Decided: 13-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A.P. SAREEN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JANUARY 13, 1997. 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4(1), 5-A, 6 and 17(1)-Land 
'f 
acquisitio1i-Urgency-Dispensing with enquily-Procedure f ol"-Delay in pub-
lication of dec/aration-IJ!fect of-Notification under Section 4( 1) published 
C on July 27, 
1995-Thereafter notification published in local 
newspapers-Thereafter personal notices issued to landowners-After comple-
tion of this process, proceedings were put up before the Government for pub-
lication of the dec/aratio11 under Section 6 which came to be made 011 April 
18, 1996-Appellant filed the writ petition on July 19, 1996 and coruequently 
D possession· co11ld not be taken-After the writ petition was disposed of, pos-
session was taken on December 10, 1996-Held : In the circumstances the 
need of urgent possession was dissipated by beaurocratic inadve11ance and 
the urgency did not cease-Urgency can be said.to exist when iand proposed 
to be acquired is needed for planned development of the city/town etc.-Ur-
gency contin11es as long as the scheme is not initiated, actinn taken and process 
E completed-Direction to landowners to ha/Vest the standing crop and remove 
· the structures-Liberty to respondents to proceed with canying out of the 
planned development activities. 
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, 
F Ghaziabad & Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 365, held inapplicable. 
(
Shri Mohan Singh & Ors. Etc. v. International Airpolt Authority of India 
& Ors. JT 1996(10) 311, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 168 of 
G 1997. 
' 
Froin the Judgment and Order-dated 9.12.96 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 23997 of 1996. 
P.P. Rao, Prag P. Tripatbi for Mis. L.P. Aggarwalla & Co. for the 
H Appellants. 
210 
) 
SAREEN v. STATE 
211 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General and Ravinder Kumar for A 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted. 
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of 
Allahabad High Court, made on December 9, 1996 in CMWP No. 23997 
B 
of 1996. The notification under Sections 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 27, 1995 and the Govern-
ment had in exercise of the power under Section 17(1) of the Act dispensed C 
with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Shri P.P. Rao, learned counsel 
for the appellant, contended that since declaration was not published 
immediately, the exercise of power under Section 17(1) dispensing with the 
inquiry \lnder Section 5-A, is bad in law as it indicates that there was no 
real urg::::icy. The view of the High Court that possession of land is deemed D 
to have been taken under Section 17( 4) is not correct on the facts of this 
case. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development 
Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad & Anr., (1996) 2 SCC 
365 has no application to the facts of this case. Though we are in agreement 
with the learned counsel in this behalf, we do not find substance in the 
other contentions. As regards the delay in issuing the said declaration we E 
find that the authorities appear to have mis-construed the steps to be taken 
under the Act. It is well-settled legal position that urgency can be said to 
exist when land proposed to be acquired is needed for planned develop· 
ment of the city/town etc. In Shri Mohan Singh & Ors. Etc. v. lntemational 
Airport Authority of India & Ors., JT (1996) 10 311, this Court considered p 
the scope of exercise of the power by the Government under Section 17(1) 
of the Act and the procedure to be followed in that behalf. When the 
Government forms an opinion that the lands are urgently needed for a 
public purpose, notification under Section 4(1) could be issued and pub-
lished in the Gazette while dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A. 
Giving a gap of one day, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act G 
could be published in the Gazette. Notice under Section (1) should be 
given and on the expiry of 15 days thereafter, possession could be taken. 
The land stands vested in the State under Section 17(2) read with Section 
16 free from all encumbrances~ Since inquiry under Section 5-A has been 
dispensed with, as provided under the Act, 80% of the compensation was H 
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
required to b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.