DERA PHALAULI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS .

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 24-07-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
- ' 
93 
DERA PHALAULI 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS . 
July 24, 1979 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ss. 4, SA & 17(4)-0rder issued under S. 17(4) 
dispensing with provisions vf S. 5A-Vafidity of-Direction to Co/icctor to take 
action under S. 17 on g1ou11d of urgency-Not a legal and con1plete fulfiln1e11t 
of the requirenient of the law. 
Allowin.~ the appeaJ, 
HELD: For n1aking the prov1s1ons of section 17(1) applicable: (a) the 
lP.nd in respet t of \vhic!i. the urgency provision is being rtpplied should be waste 
or arable fN1<l (b) there should be an urgency for taking irrimediate possession 
requirin~ dispensation of the right of the owner for filing an obji::ction under 
section SA aqd this right should not be interfered 
in a ca:i;ual or cavalil!r 
manner. 
[94C, F] 
Jn the instant case the Notification under section 17(4) of the Act neither 
I) 
--·1 
mentioned that the land is wute or arable nor that there was urgency to take 
recourse to the provisions of the Act. 
[94D] 
• • 
The direction given to the Collector to take action under Section 17 on 
the ground of urgency is not a legal and complete fulfilment of the requirement 
of the law. 
[94E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1969. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-8-1968 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2713/68. 
N. N. Keswani for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
E 
UNTWALIA, J. In this appeal filed by certificate, several points have 
G 
l;een urged by learned counsel for the appellant. 
We do not consider 
it necessary either to state all the points or discuss them as none of 
them except .one has got any substance. 
The point of substance which 
i\1 our opinion must suco~ed in this appeal is as to whether even on the 
face of the Notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), an Order under Sectiou 17 ( 4) 
II 
dispensing with the compliance with the provisions of Section SA was 
valiuly mad·~. The paragraph of the Notification which incorporated 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. II 
G 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
apparently the order exercising the power under Sub-Section ( 4) of 
Section 17 of the Act reads as follows :-
"Further in exercise of the powers under the said Act, 
the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that action under 
Section 17 shall be taken ill thls case on the grounds of 
urgency and provisions of section SA will 'not apply iu regard 
lo this acquisition." 
It is to be clearly understood that under Sub-Section 
( 4), the 
appropriate Government may direct that the provision of Section SA 
shall not apply where in the opinion of the State Government, the 
provisions of Sub-Sectieh (1) or Sub-Section(2) are applicable, other-
wise not. 
For making the provisions of Sub-Section (1) applicable, 
two things must be satisfied that the land in respect of which the ur-
gency provision is being applied is waste or arable and secondly that 
there is an urgency to proceed in the matter of ta1dng immediate 
posses5ion and so the right of the owner of the land for filing an objec-
tion nnder Section SA should not be made available to him. 
In the 
portion of the Notification which we have extracted above, it is neither 
mentioned that the land is waste or arable nor has it been stated that in 
the opinion of the Government, there was 
any urgency 
to 
take 
recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. 
A direction to 
the Collector has been given to take action under Section 17 on the 
ground of urgency but this is not a legal and complete fulfilment of the 
requirement of the law. It is to be remembered that the right of a 
person having auy interest in the property to file an objection under 
Section SA of the Act should not be interfered with in such a casual 
or cavalier manner as has been done in this case. 
For tke reasons •lated above, we allow this appeal set aside the 
order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ Petition, allow 
the writ Petition and strike down that portion of the Notificatipn issued 
on 23-8-1967 under Section 4 of the Act which directed the exercise 
of power under Section 17. The authorities if so 
advised 
m""' 
' 
' 
--
proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity to the appel-
Iunt of filing their objection under Section SJ\. 
· 
Since the other side has not appeared, there is no order as to costs. 
N.V.K. 
Appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.