DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 23-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 641 
DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 66 of 2007) 
AUGUST 23, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
ss. 4 and 6 - Publication of Notification in two Hindi c 
newspapers having circulation in the locality where the land 
is situated and where people are well conversant with Hindi 
amounts to ample compliance with the requirement of the 
publication uls.4(1) of the LA Act - In view of that, the 
subsequent publication of English translation of the said D 
Notification uls. 4 of the LA Act in two newspapets would be 
unnecessary and would not extend the period of limitation 
envisaged in the proviso to s. 6(1) of the LA Act - Therefore, 
the last date of publication for the purpose of s.4(1) of the LA 
Act,' which can be treated as date of publication, is the date E 
on which, the Notification uls.4 of the LA Act was published 
in the Hindi newspaper - In the instant case, notification ul 
s.4(1) of the LA Act was made on 4. 7.2006 - The declaration 
u/s. 6 was issued on 18. 12. 2007 which was clearly beyond the 
period of limitation of one year as mandated by the proviso F 
to s.6(1) of the LA Act. 
ss.5-A, 17(1) and 17(4)- Construction of the Leather City 
Project - Elimination of enquiry uls.5-A - Held: Acquisition 
of land for public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise 
of power of eliminating enquiry u/s.5-A in terms of s.17(1) and G 
s.17(4) of the LA Act- Court should take judicial notice of the 
fact that certain schemes or projects, such as the construction 
of the Leather City Project for public purpose, which 
contemplate the development of residential, commercial, 
641 
H 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
industrial or institutional areas, by their intrinsic nature and 
character require the investment of time of a few years in their 
B 
· planning, execution and implementation - Therefore, the land 
acquisition for said public purpose does not justify the 
elimination of enquiry u/s.5-A of the LA Act. 
s.17(1) and 17(4) - Justification of invoking the urgency 
provision uls.17(1) and excluding the application of s.5-A in 
terms of s.17(4) of the LA Act for acquisition of the land for 
the development of the Leather City Project - In terms of 
directions of the Supreme Court to the respondents to identify 
C the area for relocation of bone mills and allied industries 
causing environment pollution and health hazards as per the 
recommendations of the CPCB, the respondents specified the 
construction of the Leather City Project at Hapur in 
Ghaziabad - Subsequently, it was only after the lapse of two 
D years, the State Government published Notification u/s. 4 on 
04.07.2006 - Thereafter, the State Government took more 
than 17 months in order to make a declaration of the 
Notification u/s.6 -
This showed that the government 
functionary had proceeded at very slow pace at two levels, that 
E is, prior to the issuance of the Notification uls. 4 and post the 
issuance of the Notification uls. 4, for acquisition of the land 
for construction of the Leather City Project, which undoubtedly 
is a public purpose ~ In the light of these circumstances, the 
respondents were not justified in invoking the urgency 
F provisions u/s.17 of the LA Act, thereby, depriving the 
landowners 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. 
Judgment/Order: Directions or orders issued by the 
G 
Supreme Court - Held: Must be abided by within the four 
comers of the legal framework and statutory provision. - The 
State Government is not allowed to transgress the express 
legal provisions and procedure thereunder in the garb or guise 
of implementing the Court's guidelines or directions - The 
H 
DEVENDER KUMAR TYAGI AND ORS. v. STATE OF 643 
U.P. AND ORS. 
directions of the Supreme Court are issued with a purpose A 
and the said purpose is supposed to be followed in the realm 
of legal structure and principles. 
National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985: 
Object of the Act - Discussed. 
B 
s.19 - Absence of grant of approval of Sub-Regional 
plan by NCRPB -
Held: Would vitiate the acquisition 
proceedings - In the instant case, the respondents had 
authorized the NCRPB to prepare Sub-regional plan.of c 
construction of the Leather City Project at Hapur in the distri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.