LexOM PRAKASH AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' -~ ;.. A OM PRAKASH AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS JULY 15, 1998 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] B Land Acquisition : Land Acquisition Act, 1894: c Sections 4, and 17(4)-State Amendments of Section 17 of the Act viz. Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment) Act 12 of 1954, Section 2-And Land Acquisition (UP. Amendment and Validation) Act 8 of 1974, Section 3 after 26.4.1974-Ejfect of such amendments-Notification issued under Section 4 read With Section 17(4) dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A for D acquisition of lands in public interest for planned development of various "\ .. sectors-Delay of more than a month in issuing the notification under Section 4 from the date of proposal for urgent requirement of additional lands-Even declaration under Section 6 was issued after more than nine months after issuance of notification under Section 4-Held, conduct of State authorities falsified their claim of urgency of acquisition-Further held, planned E development of city does not always justify invocation of Section 17(4)- Court can examine whether there was relevant material before the authority to enable it to arrive at its subjective satisfaction with regard to existence of urgency for invoking Section 17(4)-0n facts, held, there was no relevant material before the State authorities for invoking Section 17(4). F Section 4 read with 17(4) and 6-Notification issued under- Invocation of Section 17(4) on the existence of urgency found to be not justified in absence of relevant material before the State authorities-9110th qf the lands already acquired-Disputes with regard to II/0th of the lands owned by the appellants on the sole ground that their lands having abadi G could not be acquired in view of a policy decision of State-Notification issued under Section 4 and consequent notification under Secfion 6-State _., invoking Section 17(4) of the Act on the ground of existence of urgency in >-, acquiring the land and hence dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry-Whether notifications issued under Section 4 and consequent notification under Section 6 could be struck down by Supreme Court under its discretionary jurisdiction H 643 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] 3 S.C.R. A under Article I 36-He/d, jurisdiction has to be exercised in the light of facts and circumstances of the case-On facts, held, that notifications need not be set aside as that will open up the Pandora's box and those accupants who were uptil now sitting on the face might also get a hint to file further proceedings on the ground of discriminatory treatment by the State B Authorities-All these complications are required to be avoided-Constitution of India, Article I 36-Jurisdiction under. Section 4-Notification acquiring certain /ands-Appellants claimed that lands under acquisition having abadi could not be acquired under a policy decision of the State Government-Lands sought to be acquired out C of agricultural holdings of the appellants were subjected to construction of abadi prior to notification dated 17.04.1976 issued under Section 2(d) read with Section 3 of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, I 976 or subsequent thereto- All disputed questions of facts-Hence no direction be issued to State authorities to release these lands for acquisition-Question whether appellants' land covered by the policy decision of the State Government left D open for decision of the State authorities-Section 2(d) read with Section 3 of U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, I 976. Section 48-Liberty of the Government to withdraw from the acquisition of land of which possession has not been taken-Objection against E acquisition-Notification issued acquiring the lands of the appellants invoking Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A- Possession of the lands acquired not taken-Landowners' only objection was that their lands having abadi could not be acquired in view of a policy decision of State Government-Held, it is for the State Government to decide whether lands having abadi on the date of Section 4 notification and that F it had continued without any additional construction thereon till the date of Section 6 notification and whether such abadi was squarely covered by the State policy-Liberty granted to landowners to raise objection before State authorities-State authorities directed to invoke power under Section 48(1) to consider their representations. G Practice and Proce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.