LexHARI SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. • • -. - HARI SINGH & ORS. v. r STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. '(A.P. SEN ~ E.S. VENKATARAMIAH. JJ.] April 6, 19$4 Land Acquisition Act, I 894-s. 4 and s.6-Acq>lsltlon proceedings (Notification u/.<.4 incorporating ord~r u/s. 17 (4) exempting application of s .. ~A and notification u/s. 6 containing. order u/s. I 7 (/) authorising · Collector 10 ·1ake possesSion issued and published in official Gazette)- Validity of acqui.dtion proceedings challenged by ~·ay of writ petiticm 0.fter a period of o'1er two years-Whether petition could be dismissed on· ground af delay-Whtther court could interfere when facts alleged in petition are disputed. On January 8, '1980 the respondent State issued a notification urider Se~. 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for acquisition of 60 ad- joining pJots of land of_ two small villaacs for construction of a market yard. Th_e notification alSo contained an order of the Government made under Sec. 17(4) of the Act directing that Sec. SA would not apply to tho said proc.eedings. The notification was publiShed in the. Official Gazetto dated January 9, 1980. That notification was followed by another··· noti- fication dated January .9, 1980 issued under Sec. 6 of the Act. This notification contained an order made under Sec .. 17 (I) of the Act autho- rising the ColleCtor to take possession of the plot's. The notification was ·published in the official Gazette dated January 10, 1980. Tho possessfon of the Plots was ·taken in course of the acquisition· proceedings. · Jn or a,bout June 1982 notices were issued by the CollectOr to the interested persons for determining the compensation . pa:Yable to- them. By filing a writ petition in the High Court 1he appellants qdestioiied the validitY of the acquisition proceedings in regard to certain plots -on the groundS that : (!) t)ley had no knowledge of the acquisition ·proceedings and were prejudiced by the order made under sec. 17 (4)i (2) there was no urgency sufficient in law to sustain the .order made under. Sec. 17 (4); and 13) Sec. 17 (4) would not be applicable because on a part of a plot of land there was a house. The High Colt<! d'ismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeaJ. Dismissing the appeal; 'HELD : In a pmall place whero these plots are situate, the acquisition of these llQds would be the talk of the town in a shortwhilo and it is· difficult to believe that tho appellants who are resident.• of that place l'f9Uld l)Ot have ~qoW!j till Jutr 1982 tqat the impu~ne<J notjfi~ation had 417 A ·B c D E F G H 418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [1984} 3 S.C.R. A been published in l98tr. Any interference in this case filed after two and U half years' Wirh the acqt.iisition protecdings· is likely to cause -serious 'public prejudice. This appea.1 should, th:rcfote1 fail ,On the ground of. delay alone. · [420G-H) . · • : B c ; .K F G Appellant No. r claims to be the owner of plot No. 249, On beb•lf of .the respondents it) is urged that ·appella9-t No. 1 is recorded only as a, co-tenure holder alongwith five others and they h~ve not iplpeached the notifications. With regard to the· allegations about the existenc'e of a house on this plot, it is seen that the said. fact is denied. Tho resPon .. · dents rely upon some· statements recorded by · th.e revt'nue authorities ~uggesting that there was no_ house·- on thi's plot on the dafe of the notification. This is a.disputed question of fact. ·Appellant· No. 2 who claiins to be_the owiier of plot No. 261 is. stated ·to have purchased it . op-NQvember 17, -19.80 .. after the impugned notificJtions. were published. ·The title of appellant No. 3 to pl it No. J33 is denied by R K. Kannaujia, Secreh\,ry,, Krishi Utpadan .M1odi _Sarni ti, Kheragarh. Ia t~is St~te._of affSlirs. where there are disputed questions_ of f;.lcts it cannot be said that (he appe11ants have made out any case for .inteiference under Article 226 of the Const.itution. [42 IB·D] There is.no ground to held that the order made undei: s~cti.on J7 (4)-0f the A>t exempting the operation of section 5-A ot the Act is bad in Jaw. even though _there appears to be .some adminis_tralive delay irr commencing the construction 9f the Market Yard. [421F·G] . ' ~ ' .. State. of Punjab v. ·. Gucdlal Singh & Ors., [1980] .1 S.C.R. · 1011, feferrid to. · . CivIL APl'fLLAl'E JuRlSDIQTION :·Ci.Yi! Appeal No. 5313 of 1983,, · Appeal by Special leave fr.om the J
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.