LexM/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLVE. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 273 " ·• MIS. SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLVE. & ANR. A v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3505 Of 2008) MAY 12, 2008 B [A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ., .}\ , Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 17 (4) rlw s. 5-A - Land acquisition - Dispensing with requirement uls 5-A - Propriety of- Held: In the facts of the case, invocation of s. 17 (4) r/w 5- c A is warranted - Invocation of s. 5-A was not for ulterior pur- pose or for arbitrary exercise of power Land of the appellants was acquired under Land Ac- quisition Act, 1894 dispensing with requirement of s. 5A of the Act. Appellant filed writ petition. High Court held D •.hat the urgency shown for invoking ~. 5A was justified and there was no infirmity in Notifications issued for ac- quiring the land. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. The right to file objection under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a valuable right and the Governments are not given a free hand to dispense with • Section 5-A. Section 5-A is only a safeguard against the + arbitrary exercise of the power by the State. But one F should also not lose sight of the fact that invocation of such a provision is also sometimes imperative as in or- der to meet the urgency of the situation, it needs to be invoked in public interest. Sometimes it may not be nee- essary at all and the State functionaries may sometime, G out of over zealousness may invoke this provision which -.; would seriously jeopardize the interest of the people. Therefore, it depends upon case to case where in a given situation Section 5-A has been correctly invoked and the 273 H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S. C.R. A authorities were satisfied in an objective manner. [Para 4] ... ' [278-A-D] 2. In the present case invocation of Section 17 (4) read with Section 5-A of the Act was well warranted and B there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In order to keep pace with the speed of growth of Indian economy, invo- cation of Section 5-A has become imperative. Traffic con- )!. "" gestion is a common experience of one and all and it is very difficult to negotiate with the traffic congestion in c Delhi an.d National Capital region. Therefore, in the present situation, it cannot be said that the invocation of Section 5-A was for ulterior purpose or was arbitrary exercise of the power. Since the Master Plan has already been pre- pared and it has been approved by the Planning Board D and they have sanctioned the amount for the develop- me,...t of this Transport Nagar and widening of the National ,... - High Way. Therefore, the proposal was approved by the Board and it got the sanction from the National Capital Regional Planning Board and ultimately the Government E invoked the power under Section 17 (4) read with Section 5-A of the Act dispensing with the objections. [Paras 4 and 5] [280-D; 278-DG] Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and Ors. 1993 (2) SC 84; Union of India and Ors. v. Praveen Gupta • ' F ' and Ors. 1997 (9) sec 78 - relied on. "1 Union of India and Ors. v. Mukesh Hans 2004 (8) SCC 14 - distinguished. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3505 G of 2008 I From the final Judgment dated 6/12/2006 of the High Court -- ' Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 65687/2006 R.K. Khanna, Neeraj D. Gaur, Piyush Sharma, S.S. Nehra H and Dr. l.B. Gaur for the Appellants. M/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS & ANR. v. STATE OF 275 U.P. & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J] Shail Kr. Dwivedi, A.A.G., Subodh Markandey, G. A Sheshagiri Rao, Chitra Markandeya, Kamlendra Mishra, Aarohi Bhalla and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave granted. B ; .l\ 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court affirmed the notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as C 'the Act') and the notification dated 19.10.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised before the High Court on behalf of the respondent- Bulandshahr-Khurja Development Authority, Bulandshahr that the writ petition was --->- . not maintainable at the instance of the appellants and secondly D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.