FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 07-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 
V. 
NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI AND ANR. 
MARCH 7, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAJ.K AND BRIJESH KUM~R, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 17(1) and (4). 
LaniAcquisition-Urgency and emergency of-Dispensing with inquiry 
C under· S.5-a--Government 's power-Held : the question of urgency of an 
acquisition under s.17(1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction 
of the Government-If the Government is satisfied that there exists an emergency 
the same should not be lightly interfered with by the Court unless the authority 
has taken·the decision malafide--The burden of establishing malafide is very 
D heavy on· the person who alleges it. 
The appellant initiated acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification 
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the suit 
premises ·which was under the occupation of the students of a Medical College. 
But the said notification was quashed by the High Court. A fresh notification 
E under Section 4 of the Act was again issued. The High Court quashed the 
seco~j notification also and directed that vacant possession of the premises 
be handed over within six months. Thereafter, a third notification was issued 
under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act in respect of the same premises 
dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The High Court quashed 
F 
this notification also on the grounds that vacant possession of the premises 
not having been handed over the acquisition was malafide, that no grave 
urgency and emergency existed and, therefore, invocation of power under 
Section 17(4) got vitiated. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court ought 
G not to have interfered with the subjective satisfaction of the authority in the 
H 
matter of urgency. 
· 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that as the possession of _ 
the premises was with the acquitting authority there existed no urgency and, 
therefore, exercise of power under Section 17 dispensing with inquiry under 
326 
,__ __
FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 1•. NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI 
327 
Section 5-A was patently erroneous. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l. l. The question of urgency of an acquisition under Section 
17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a matter of subjective 
satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to B 
make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal 
of facts. When the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant 
consideration into account and is satisfied that there exists an emergency for 
invoking power under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act, and issues a 
Notification accordingly, the same should not be interfered with by the Court 
unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority .had C 
not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken 
by the appropriate authority ma/a fide. Whether in a given situation there 
existed an urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the concerned 
authorities. If an order invoking the power under Section 17(4) is assailed, 
Courts may enquire whether the appropriate authority had all the relevant 
materials before it or whether the order has been passed by non-application D 
of mind. Any post-Notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State 
Government dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers 
under Section 17(1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially 
when no ma/a fides on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged. 
Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a Court of law if it E 
could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the 
matter or that action of the State Government is ma/a fide. Though the 
satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and is not open to challenge 
before a Court of law, except for the grounds already indicated, but the said 
satisfaction must be of the appropriate Government and that the satisfaction 
must be as to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the Government F 
that there was an urgency even though cannot be conclusive but is entitled to 
great weight. f352-A-EJ 
Jage Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1971) SC 1033, 
relied on. 
1.2. Even a mere allegation that the power was exercised ma/a fide would 
not be e

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