LexMEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. versus SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. v. SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC. SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894: A B Sections 4(1), 6, 17(4'r-Simultaneous publication of the declaration under S. 6 along with publication of notification under .s. 4(1'r-Validity C of-Judicial decision holding it invalid-Amending Act-Cannot simply seek to take away the effect of the judgment-In that case it would amount to legislative repeal of the judicial decision-Held, S. 2 of the U.P. Amendment Act 5 of 1991 would operate prospectively and retrospectively from April 24, 1984 applying to the previous notifications and declarations but also to D notifications and declarations to be published subsequently-Retrospective effect given from date of issuance of ordinance to the Act and operation retrospectively from the date of judgment-No inconsistency in operation of the Act or invalidity in giving two dates for the retrospective operation of the provisions of the Act-Acquisition for housing development is an urgent purpose and exercise of the power under S. 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry E under S. SA is not invalid-Exercise of power under S. 4(1) and declaration under S. 6 are not vitiated by any manifest e"or of law wa"anting to quash the declaration under S. 6 as was done by the High Court~onstructions made despite status quo order passed by Supreme Court-Such constructions will not bind the authority-No compensation for these illegal construe- F tions---Land Acquisition Officer to take note of these at the time of passing the Award-Award to be passed within six months. Smt. Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (19631 2 SCR 775; Ghaziabad Development Authority v.Jai Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad G & Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 365; Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of Kera/ & Ors., JT (1996) 2 SC 85; State of Orissa v. Gopal Chandranath, [1995) 6 SCC 243; Bhubaneswar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994) 6 SCC 77; Comorin Match Industries P. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1996) 4 SCC 281; Gouri Shankar Gauri & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994) 1 SCC 92; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. HM. T., [1975) Supp. SCR 384;Aflatoon H 529 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975) 4 SCC 285; Smt. Pista Devi v. M.DA., [1986) 4 SCC 251 and State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, [1996) 7 SCC 450, relied on. State of U.P. & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam & Ors., [1989) 1 SCR 92; Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India, [1978) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P. B & Anr. v. Keshwav Prasad Singh, [1995) 5 SCC 587 and State of Haryana v. The Kamal Co-operative Fanners' Society Ltd., JT (1993) 2 SC 235, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal C No. 1828 of 1988 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.88 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10551 of 1985. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, M.N. Krishnamani, Anis Suhrawardy, Mrs. S. D Janani, V.J. Francis, R.D. Upadhyay, R. Bana, Ms. LaXIni Arvind, Subodh Markandeya, Ms. Chitra Markandeya M.M. Chopra, Ms. Meenakshi Agar- wal, (Anip Sachthey, P.D. Sharma, R.B. Misra, A.S. Pundir), (NP), Pradeep Misra, T. Mahipal, (RC. Verma) for, Ashok K. Srivastava for the appearing parties. E The following Orders of the Court was delivered : Substitution allowed. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. F Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the "Act") was published on June 11, 1985. The Government also exercised the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A and had the declaration under Section 6 pub- lished on June 13, 1985. The publication of substance of the notification in the local newspapers came to be made on July 25, 1985. In August 1985, G the respondents filed a batch of writ petitions in the High Court impugning the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and of the declaration under Section 6 on six grounds. Five of the grounds raised by the respon- dents were negatived by the High Court as not sustainable but declaration under Section 6 was quashed on the ground that after the Amendment Act H 68 of 1984 had come into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984, the simultaneous MEERUT AUTHORITYv. SATBIRSINGH 531 publication of the declaration under Section 6 along with publication of A notification under Section 4(1) was invali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.