MAHENDER PAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 418 · Decided: 15-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 418 
MAHENDER PAL & OTHERS 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 36,04 of 2009) 
MAY 15, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ,] 
La11d Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 17(4) - Emergency 
powers - Invocation of - Scope - Land acquisition for 
C development an<J utilization of land for outer ring road, green 
belt on both sides - Writ petition challenging the Notifications . 
dismissed .,... On appeal held: In such cases, valuable right of 
hearing can be taken away only if condition precedent for 
emergency power is satisfied - For invoking the said 
-• 
D provision, existence of foundational fact is a sine qua non 
for formation of opinion - Subjective satisfaction must be 
based on an objective criteria - lpse dixit on the part of the 
State would not serve the purpose - Petitioner made out a 
case for examination of their cases - Hence, matter remitted 
E to High Court for consideration afresh. 
The question which arose for consideration in this 
appeal was whether for acquisition of land for 
development and utilization of land for outer ring road, 
green belt on both sides, the State Government could 
F have resorted to the emergency powers in terms of s. 17 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Right to file objection and hearing .thereof 
to a notification issued by the appropriate government 
expressing its intention to acquire a property is a 
valuable right. Such a valuable right of hearing and 
418 
MAHENDER PAL & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & 419 
ORS. 
particu_larly in a case of this nature could have been taken 
A 
away only if conditions precedent for exercise of this 
emergency power stood satisfied. Sub-section (4) of 
section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an 
exception to s. 5A. An opinion of the government in this 
behalf is required to be formed if there exists an 
B 
emergency. Existence of the foundational fact for 
' 
invoking the said provision is, therefore, a sine qua non 
for formation of opinion. Such an subjective satisfaction 
must be based on an objective criteria. lpse dixit on the 
part of the State would not serve the purpose. Appellants c 
made out a case for examination of their cases. The 
nature of constructions and other features of the land 
sought to be acquired have been noticed. [Para 12] (422-
E-H; 423-A] 
.. 
1.2. The purported public purpose for which the land D 
is to be acquired is for laying down a road. The road 
connection is one of the purposes mentioned in sub-
section (2) of section 17 of the Act in respect whereof 
sub-section (4) thereof would apply. But the same would 
not mean that for the purpose of road connection 
E 
irrespective of the nature of cases and/ or irrespective. of 
f 
the nature of the road to be constructed; s.17(4) could be 
invoked. [Para 13] [423-8-C] 
---
1.3. As an extraordinary power has been conferred 
F 
upon the Appropriate Government in terms whereof the 
normal procedure laid down under section 5A of the Act 
could be dispensed with, the High Court,· should have 
entered into the merit of the matter .. The impugned 
judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside. The G 
matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of 
the matter afresh on merit. [Paras 14 and 17] [423-Dt 426-
CJ 
Mahadevappa Lachappa Kinagi and Ors. v. State of 
Karnataka and Ors. (2008) 12 sec 418, relied on. 
H 
420 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Union of India and Ors. v. Mukesh Hans (2004) 8 SCC 
14;Union of India and Ors. v. :Krishan Lal Arneja and Ors. 
(2004) 8 sec 453, referred to. 
1.4. An exception carved out. from the main provision 
8 as a result whereof a citizen of India may be deprived of 
his property particularly having regard to the fact that if 
it is considered to be a human right, procedural 
safeguards laid down therefor must be scrupulously 
complied with. It being an expropriatory legislation 
C deserves strict constructi9n. [Para 16] [426-A-B] 
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur 
Chenai and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627; Devinder Singh and Ors. 
v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2008) 1 SCC 728; City 
Montessori School v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2009 
D (2) SCALE 7 40, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 12 sec 418 
Relied on. 
Para 14 
E 
(2004) 8 sec 14 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
(2004) s sec 453 
Referred to. 
Para 15 
(2005) 1 sec s21 
Relied on. 
Para 16 
(2008) 1 sec 128 
Reli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.