LexDEV SHARAN & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 3 S.C.R. 728 DEV SHARAN & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2334 of 2011 etc.) MARCH 7, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1897: c Section. 5-A, 4, 17 and 6 - Acquisition of land for construction of district jail - Invoking of s. 17 ( 4) and dispensing with s.5-A inquiry- HELD: There being more than 11 months gap between ss. 4 and 17 notification and s. 6 declaration, this tself indicates that there was no urgency for invoking pro 0 isions of s.17(4) and denying the land owners their right u/s 5-A - Notification uls 4 and declaration u/s 6 are quashed so far as they relate to appellants - Possession of appellants over their lands not to be interfered with except in accordance with law. E Section 3(f) read with ss. 5-A and 17(4)- Public purpose - HELD : Construction of a district jail is public purpose - The concept of public purpose in land acquisition has to be viewed from an angle which is consistent with the concept of a welfare State - Even though the concept of public purpose was F introduced by pre-Constitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with the constitutional ethos and especially the chapter under Fundamental Rights and also the Directive Principles - In construing the concept of public purpose, the mandate of Article 13 of the Constitution that any pre- G constitutional law cannot in any way take away or abridge rights conferred under Part-Ill must be kept in mind - If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering common man homeless and by exploring other avenues of acquisition, the courts, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in exercise of H 728 DEV SHARAN & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 729 its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept A of social and economic justice - Concept of public purpose must also be read into provisions of emergency power u/s 17 with consequential dispensation of right of hearing uls. 5-A - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 13 - Parts Ill and IV - Social and economic justice. B Sections 5-A and 17(4)- Hearing of objections - HELD: The Act is a drastic law being expropriatory in nature as it confers on the State a power which affects person's property right and, therefore, has to be construed very strictly - It is C reiterated that the right conferred uls 5-A has to be read considering the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution and so construed the right uls 5-A should be interpreted as being akin to a Fundamental Right and, therefore, the procedures which have been laid down for depriving a person of the said right must be complied with-Constitution of India, D 195~Article 300-A-lnterpretation of Statutes. The State Government, in order to construct a district jail, issued a notification ulss 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.8.2008. The provisions of s.5-A were E dispensed with on the ground that it was done with the -- pressing urgency in the matter of construction of the jails. The writ petition of the land-owners was dismissed by the High Court. In the appeals filed by the land-owners the question for consideration before the Court was: whether in the admitted facts of the case, invoking the urgency clause uls 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was justified. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Act, 1897, a pre-Constitutional legislation of colonial vintage, is a drastic law, being expropriatory in nature as it F G H 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 3 S.C.R. A confers on the State a power which affects person's property right and, therefore, has to be construed strictly. [Para 15 and 20] [737-C-D; 739-D-E] DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable 8 Trust vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2003 (2) SCR 1 = (2003) 5 SCC 622, State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. B.E. Billimaria and Ors. - 2003 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 603 = (2003) 7 SCC 336, Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. -2008 (10) SCR 190 = (2007) sec 705-relied on. c 1.2 This Court is of the opinion that the concept of public purpose in land acquisition has to be viewed from an angle which is consistent with the concept of a welfare State. Even though the concept of public purpose was D introduced by pre-Constitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with the constitutional ethos and especially the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.