BABU RAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1111 · Decided: 07-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 14 S.C.R. 1111 
BABU RAM AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6864 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 7, 2009 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 17 and 5A - Land 
acquisition proceedings for construction of Sewage Treatment 
Plant(STP) - Notification indicated that the land was required C 
on urgent basis within meaning of sub-section (4) of s.17, 
thereby excluding application of s.5A - Appellant-landowners 
thus denied opportunity of filing objection under s.5A - They 
filed writ petition in High Court which was dismissed - On 
appeal, held: Proposed STP situated in vicinity of school and D 
grain market, both hubs of community activities - The project 
could have serious consequences on health of general public 
of the area - Opportunity should have been given to the 
appellants to file objections to the proposed acquisition -
Appellants filed writ petition in an attempt to protect their E. 
constitutional right to property- Since site still lying unutilized, 
appellants granted opportunity to file objections to proposed 
acquisition under s. 5-A - Respondents to take consequential 
steps after disposal of the same. 
Subsequent to acquisition of certain lands in 1995, 
F 
the State of Haryana issued another Notification in 2005 
under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of a Sewage 
Treatment Plant (STP). In the said Notification, it was 
indicated that the land was required on an urgent basis G 
within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the 
Act, thereby excluding the application of Section 5-A of 
the said Act. The said Notification under Section 4 was 
followed by another Notification in 2006 under Section 6 
1111 
H 
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A of the Act. In the said Notification it was also made clear 
\-
that the Land Acquisition Collector-cum- District Revenue 
Officer proposed to take possession of the land in 
question as the land was to be acquired urgently. 
8 
Having been denied the opportunity of filing an 
objection under Section 5-A of the Act, the appellants-
landowners filed writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the two Notifications under Sections 4 and 
6 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
c 
In appeal to this Court, two questions arose for 
consideration; firstly whether the provisions of Section 
17(4) of the Act, had been validly invoked by the 
respondents for the purpose of acquiring the lands in 
question for the Sewage Treatment Plant and secondly 
D whether the choice of site for setting. up the STP would 
' 
prove to be hazardous for the inhabitants of the area. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
•
E 
HELD: 1.1. If an opportunity had been given to file 
objection's to the proposed acquisition, the second 
question would have been resolved while deciding the 
objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894. Unfortunately, the provisions of Section 17(4) were 
invoked in relation to a project which could have serious 
F consequences to the health of the general public of the 
area. Although, it has been urged on behalf of the 
.. 
respondents that the decision to set up the three Sewage 
Treatment Plants was in response to a public demand to 
install sewage drains and the present site had been 
G chosen to be the most suitable for a STP, it has not been 
denied that the proposed STP is to be situated in the 
t 
vicinity of a school and grain market which are both hubs 
of community activities. [Para 20] [1123-E-G] 
H 
BABU RAM AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 1113 
ANR. 
1 
1.2. In the present case, this Court is not concerned 
A 
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 the 
appellants could have filed objections to the proposed 
acquisition is difficult to appreciate since the right to file 
B 
such objections had, in fact, been taken away by invoking 
the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. Such a stand 
' 
taken on behalf of the respondent authorities only serve 
to strengthen the case of the appellants that an 
opportunity should have been given to .them to file c 
objections to the proposed acquisition. In various earlier 
cases, it has been emphasized that a right under Section 
5-A is not merely statutory but also has the flavour of 
fundamental rights

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