NAVNEET RAM BATRA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 17-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'826 
NAVNEET RAM BATRA 
- \', 
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH & ORS. 
September 17, 1975 
[A. ALAGIR!SWAML, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
. Lan<f Acq1;1isition Act-Sec. 4 (1), SA. 17 (1) and 17(4)-Ur,zency Clau.~e·­
D1spens1!1g wllh hea.ring of objections-Person entitled to object-Whether any 
person in the locahty can object or person interested in land concerned· 011/y 
can object. 
!he appellant is a tenant of Plot No. 428. 
A notification was issued under 
s.echon 4 ( 1) of the: Land Acquisition Act for setting up an industrial estate in 
respect of Plot No. 428 and Plot No. 436. 
By a notification under section 17 
( ~ ~ the provi~ions of section SA were dispensed with on the ground that pro-
v1s1?~s o~ S\!~Ion 17(1) (Urgency) were applicable. 
The appellant filed a. Writ 
Petition 1n High Court challenging the said notification issued under section 17 
( 4). 
The Single Judge dismissed the Wri! Petition. An appeal filed to the 
Division Bench was also dismissed. 
On an appeal by Special Leave, it was contended by the appellant that there 
~as a pucca co~struction on. Plot No. 436 which was also notified for acquisi-
tion under the impugned notifrcation and consequently the provisions- of Section 
17 ( 4) would not be applicable to that land as it was not arabfe or waste 
land and could not be acquired by dispensing with the enquiry under section 
SA and as such, the whole notification is bad and should be quashed. 
Dismis~1ing the appeal, 
HELD: 
1. AdnUttedly the appellant's land is a waste and arable land and 
thu~ 
falls under section 17(1). The person who could have taken objection to the. 
equiry under section SA. being dispensed. with was the owner of Plot No. 436. 
He has not objected to the acquisiti-0n. 
It is, therefore, not open to the appel-
lant to queS<tion the validity of the notification. 
If the ownocr of Plot No. 
436 had objec;ted to the notification different considerations 
might 
arise. 
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1763) distinguished. 
[827E-F] 
2. Section SA should be understood in the background of section 
4(1). 
Section 4 (1) requires only the locality in which the· land is situate, to 
be 
mentioned in the notification. But in actual practice the survey numbers of the 
lands sought to be aoquired are· given .in such notification~. The question of 
notifying the locality might probably arise when all the lands in a village 
are 
sought to be acquired. 
Otherwise, the word locality is a word 
of 
such 
indefinite import that it is difficult to 
conceive 
of any 
locality 
in any 
particular village being notified for acquisition. 
When a locality in the 
sense of a village or a group of villages in notified for acquisition any person 
interested in any land in that locality would be 
entitled to be heard under 
section SA. 
But where land proposed to be· acqui'red is specificnlly mentioned 
in the notification .it is only the person interested in that land Nho is entitled 
to be heard under section 5A. That is why section 
5A 
provides that any 
person interested may Object to the acquisition of land or of any land in the 
locality as the case may be. 
The latter part would apply to a case where 
lands in any locality are notified undeT section 4 rt). 
That .js the signi-
ficance of the use ofl the words "as the case· nlay be." 
Anv per~on unconnec-
1ed with land cannot obiect tn the acquisition of the land in 
the 
locality 
since he would not be a person interested. 
[828-F-H. 829A-Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJ'SD!CT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 1154 of 1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the Jud~ment and Order dated the 
18th December, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal 
No. 324 of 1962. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
) 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
i 
H 
N. R. BATRA v. U.P. STATE (Alagiriswami, !.) 
827 
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Miss Rani' 
Arora, for the appellant. 
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J. 
The appellant is a tenant of plot No. 428 in 
mauza Dehra Khas, pargana Central Doon, district Dehradun. 
This 
land along with some other pieces of land was notified under s. 4(1 ). 
of the Land Acquisition Act on February 8, 1962 for acquLsition for 
the purpose of setting up an industrial estate at Dehradun. 
By the 
same notification, under s. 17 ( 4) of the Act it was directed that the 
provisions of s. 5A shall not apply on the ground that the provisions of 
s. 17 ( 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.