DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 03-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 772 
A 
DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS. 
->-
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6293 of 2011) 
B 
AUGUST 3, 2011 
/. 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
c 
s. 4 rlw s.17(4), s.6 rlw s.17(1), and s.5-A-Acquisition of 
land for constructing the District Jail - Invoking of urgency 
provisions u/s 17 and dispensing with the compliance of s. 
5-A - HELD: Acquisition of land for construction of District Jail, 
which is a public purpose, shall not, by itself justify the 
t 
exercise of power of eliminating enquiry uls 5-A in terms of 
...
D s. 17 (1) and s.17 (4) - The Court should take judicial notice 
.... 
of the fact that certain public purposes such as development 
of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas by 
their intrinsic nature and character contemplate planning, 
E execution and implementation of the schemes which generally 
take time of few years - Therefore, the land acquisition for 
said public purposes does not justify invoking of urgency 
provisions under the Act - In the instant case, the series of 
events shows lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of State 
,. 
F 
Government - The authorities are not justified in invoking the 
urgency provisions u/s 17 of the Act, thereby depriving the 
land-owners of their valuable right u/s 5-A to raise objections 
and to be given opportunity of hearing before the authorities 
in order to persuade them that their property may not be 
G 
acquired - Impugned judgment of High Court set aside -
Judicial notice. 
,,,-
The appellants filed a writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the notification u/s 4 read withs. 17 (4) 
and the declaration u/s 6 read with s. 17 (1) of the Land 
H 
772 
• 
DEVENDRA SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & 
773 
ORS. 
Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in respect of acquisition of A 
their lands, and thereby dispensing with the opportunity 
of hearing and inquiry u/s 5-A of the Act. The High Court 
accepted the stand of the State authorities that the land 
was acquired for construction of the District Jail which 
was an urgent matter, and dismissed the writ petition. 
B 
Allowing the appeal filed by the landowners, the 
.court 
HELD: 1.1 It is well settled that acquisition of land for 
public purpose by itself shall not justify the exercise of C 
power of eliminating inquiry u/s 5-A in terms of s. 17 (1) 
and s.17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court 
should take judicial notice of the fact that certain public 
purposes such as development of residential, 
commercial, industrial or institutional areas by their D 
intrinsic nature and character contemplate planning, 
execution and implementation of the schemes which 
generally take time of few years. Therefore, the land 
acquisition for said public purposes does not justify the 
invoking of urgency provisions under the Act. [para 9] 
E 
[784-A-C] 
1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is 
clear that the District of Jyotiba Phule Nagar was created 
in the year 1997 which was, however, dissolved and 
recreated in 2004. The District Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule 
F 
Nagar, had sent a proposal to the Principal Secretary, 
Home/Prisons, Government of U.P. for acquisition of land 
for the construction of District Jail on 24.01.2003 which 
is undoubtedly a public purpose. After the lapse of 5 
years in the year 2008, the State Government asked the 
G 
District Magistrate to trace availability of lands for 
acquisition for construction of the District Jail in the 
proximity to District Headquarters and further requested 
the Selection Committee to recommend the land suitable 
for the said purpose. Thereafter, the Selection Committee 
H 
77 4 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A recommended the acquisition of the land in question as 
suitable for the construction of the Jail but it took two 
years for the State Government to issue the Notifications 
u/ss. 4 and 6 respectively, thereby invoking the urgency 
provisions u/s 17 of the Act. The series of events shows 
B lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of the State 
Government. In the circumstances, the respondents are 
not justified in invoking the urgency provisions u/s 17 of 
the Act, thereby depriving the appellants of their valuable 
right u/s 5-A to raise objections and to be afforded 
c opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to 
persuade them that their property may not be acquired. 
The impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside. 
[paras 11 

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