ESSCO FABS PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 779 
ESSCO FABS PVT. LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6580-81 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
A 
B 
ss. 17(1),(2) and (4) rlw ss. 4(1) and 6(1) and s.5-A -
c 
Acquisition of land -
State Government invoking urgency 
clause u/s 17 and dispensing with inquiry and hearing of 
objections uls 5A -
HELD: Before exercise of power of 
eminent domain, an opportunity of hearing must be afforded 
to owner of property -
Even in cases of ' urgency; or 0 
'unforeseen emergency' within the meaning of sub-ss. (1) 
and (2) of s. 17, enquiry contemplated by s. 5-A cannot ipso 
facto be dispensed with - It is only when the Government 
makes a declaration under sub-s.(4) of s.17 that it becomes 
unnecessary to take recourse to procedure uls 5-A -
On 
E 
facts, no urgency clause could have been invoked nor could 
inquiry and hearing of objections uls 5-A be dispensed with 
-
Resultantly, actions of the government dispensing with 
inquiry and hearing of objections u/s. 5-A, and issuance of 
final notification uls 6 quashed. 
The respondent-State Government, on 15.12.1982 
issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1984 in respect of the lands in question. However, as the 
acquisition proceedings could not be completed, the 
F 
lands were released. Thereafter, a company engaged in 
G ' 
export business (the appellant in C.A. No. 6580 of 2008), 
purchased some of the said lands for expansion of its 
Export Orient Unit, and made an application on 6.6.1991 
for change of user of the land. The said application was 
779 
H ; 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A rejected on the ground that the land was likely to be 
required for public purp.ose. The case of the appellant in 
C.A. No. 6581 of 200Q w~s that it being ,a Cooperative 
Housing Society, the State Government released some of 
the !ands in question in its favour- in 1985. The Society 
B invested huge amount in developing the land. On 1.8.2001 
the State Government again issued a notification u/s 4(1) 
of the Act in respect of the lands in question for 
development and construction of a link road. The State 
' 
Government, by applying urgency clause u/s.17 of the 
c Act, dispensed with the inquiry and hearing of objections 
u/s.5·A of the Act and on the next day, i.e. on 2.8.2001, 
issued the declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act. Both, the export 
company as also the Housing Cooperative Society, 
challenged the acquisition proceedings on the grounds 
D that they were denied their valuable right of filing 
objections u/s 5·A, and that it was not a case for invoking 
the provisions of s.17 of the Act. Since the writ 
i 
petitioners' plea did not find favour with the High Court, 
they filed the appeals. 
I-
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is in exercise of power of eminent domain 
that a sovereign may acquire property which does not 
belong to him. As a general rule, before exercise of power 
of eminent domain, law must provide an opportunity of 
'f 
F hearing against the proposed acquisition. Even without 
a specific p_rovision to that effect, general law requires 
raising of objections by and affording opportunity of 
hearing to the owner of the property. Section SA of The 
G Land Acquisition Act, 1923 contains such a provision. 
Afte~ ·issuance of preliminary notification u/s 4 and or 
before 'final n~tification u/s 6 of the Act, the appropriate 
' 
...... 
Goxernment is enjQined to hear person interested in the 
r 
}-, 
property before he is deprived of his ownership rights. 
H 
[Para 27] [798·C·E] 
ESSCO FASS PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 781 
& ANR. 
1.2. There may be cases of 'urgency' or 'unforeseen 
A 
A 
emergency' which may brook no delay for acquisition of . 
such property in larger public interest. The Legislature, 
therefore, thought it appropriate to deal with such cases 
of exceptional nature and in its wisdom enacted Section 
17. Whereas sub-section (1) of Section 17 deals with 
B 
cases of 'urgency', sub-section (2) of the said section 
covers cases of 'sudden change in the channel of any 
navigable river or other unforeseen emergency'. But even 
in such cases of 'urgency' or 'unforeseen emergency', 
enquiry contemplated by Section SA cannot ipso facto be c 
dispensed with which is clear from sub-s.(4) of s.17. lfthe 
Government intends to acquire land in cases of 'urgency' 
or 'unforeseen emergency' falling under or cover

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