LexM/S. DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 191 M/S. DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2009) AUGUST 18, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 17(3A), 17(1), 17(4), A B 11 A, 6 and 5A - Acquisition of abadi land for planned C development - Issuance of Notification uls. 4(1) rw s. 17(1) and 17(4) - Dispensation of provision of hearing uls. 5A - Publication of declaration u/s. 6 in the year 2002 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken - Case of the land owners that possession of the land was taken without D issuance of notification to them; that the award was not passed within two years of making the declaration uls. 17(1); arid they were not paid 80 per cent of the estimated compensation in terms of s. 17(3A) at the time of taking of possession - Writ petition seeking declaration that the said acquisition E proceedings be declared void ab initio and the land be returned to the land owners with damages - Dismissal of writ petition - Issues arising before Supreme Court that when land is acquired in exercise of emergency powers u/s. 17 and have since vested in the State, would the acquisition proceeding F lapse and land be transferred to the owners/persons interested in case of non-compliance of s. 11 A; whether the provisions of s. 17(3A) are mandatory or directory and in either event, would non-compliance of s. 17(3A) invalidate or vitiate the entire acquisition proceedings, even where the land G has vested in the State; whether the emergency provisions are to be construed strictly and the safeguards inbuilt ins. 17(3A) are construed as conditions precedent and mandatory for a valid exercise of emergency provisions; and whether the 191 H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R. A provisions of the said Act are to be construed as a pre- constitutional law in consonance with the fundamental tenets of Article 14 -· Held: Per Ganguly J: Requirement of payment u/s. 17(3A) is in the nature of condition precedent clamped by the statute before taking possession under emergency B acquisition by the State - Provision of s. 17(3A) indicates mandatory compiiance - It is a law enacted to prevent deprivation of property rights guaranteed under Article 300 A - Thus, taking over possession of land without complying with the requirement of s. 17(3A) is illegal and in violation of the c statutory provision which automatically violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A - Per Swatanter Kumar J: Once the acquired land has vested in the Government in terms of s. 16 or 17(1), possession of which has already been taken, such land is incapable of being re- D vested or reverted to the owners/persons interested therein, for lack of any statutory provision for the same under the Act - Provisions of s. 17(3A) suggests that it is mandatory but, as no consequences of default have been prescribed by the Legislature therein, thus, it would hardly be permissible for the Court to read into the said provision any drastic E consequences much less lapsing of entire acquisition proceedings ·- s. 11 A has no application to the acquisition proceedings conducted under the provisions of s. 17 - In view of diver.qence of opinion, matter referred to the larger bench - Reference to larger bench. F Land owned by appellant No. 1, Company (abadi land) was sought to be acquired for the planned industrial development of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority. Notification was issued under Section 4(1) read with Sections G 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking acquisition of the land. The provision of hearing under Section 5A was dispensed with. Pursuant thereto, declaration under Section 6 was published in the year 2002 declaring the area required by the Government and thereafter, the possession H of the land was taken under Section 9(1) of the Act. The DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. 193 STATE OF U.P. & ANR. appellants alleged that they did not receive any notice under A Section 9(1) of the Act but the possession of the land was taken; that the Collector did not pass the award within two years of making the declaration under Section 17(1) as required by Section 11 A of the Act; and that they were not paid 80 per cent of the estimated compensation in terms of Section 17(3A) of B the Act at the time of taking of possession. The appellants filed a wr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.