RAM DHARI JINDAL MEMORIAL TRUST versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 21-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 525 
RAM DHARI JINDAL MEMORIAL TRUST 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(CIVIL APPEAL No. 3813 of 2007) 
MARCH 21, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.) 
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: 
A 
B 
ss.17(1), 17(4), SA - Invocation of power of urgency and c 
elimination of enquiry uls.5-A - Permissibility - Held: If the 
government seeks to invoke its power of urgency, it has to first 
form the opinion that the land for the stated public purpose is 
urgently needed - However, use of power of urgency u/s. 17(1) 
and (4) of the Act ipso facto does not result in elimination of D 
enquiry uls. SA and, therefore, if the government intends to 
l 
eliminate enquiry, then it has to apply its mind on the aspect 
that urgency is of such nature that necessitates elimination 
of such enquiry - Use of the power of urgency and 
dispensation of enquiry by the Government in a routine 
E 
manner for the "planned development of city" or 
"development of residential area" and thereby depriving the 
owner or person interested of a very valuable right u/s.5-A may 
not meet the statutory test nor could be readily sustained -
Ordinarily, therefore, invocation of urgency power by the 
government for a Residential Scheme that does not fall in 
F 
exceptional category cannot be held to he legally sustainable 
- In the instant case, competent authority miserably failed to 
show that the stated purpose 'Rohini Residential Scheme' 
could not have brooked the delay of few months and the 
conclusion of the enquiry uls. SA of the Act would have 
G 
frustrated the said public purpose - In view of that s. 4 and s. 6 
Notifications quashed - Competent authority to invite. 
objections uls.5-A of the Act. 
525 
H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
ss.17(1), 17(4), 5A - Burden to prove that use of power 
of urgency was justified - Held: Lies on the government -
Where the government invokes urgency power uls.17(1) and 
(4) for the public purpose like 'planned development of city' 
or 'development of residential area' or 'Residential Scheme', 
B the initial presumption in favour of the government does not 
arise and the burden lies on the government to prove that the 
use of power was justified and dispensation of enquiry was 
necessary. 
Due to acute shortage of houses in the city of Delhi, 
C the Delhi Government formulated the plan for 
development. A Notification under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued indicating that 
land stated therein was likely to be required by the Delhi 
Government for the public purpose namely Rohini 
D Residential Scheme, Delhi. In the said Notification, it was 
mentioned that Lt. Governor, Delhi was satisfied that 
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were 
applicable to the land mentioned in the Notification" and 
under sub-section (4) of Section 17 has directed that all 
E the provisions of Section SA of the Act would not apply. 
On April 3, 2000, a declaration was made by the 
Government of Delhi under Section 6 of the Act stating 
that the land mentioned therein was acquired for the 
public purpose namely Rohini Residential Scheme. The 
F appellant-owner of the land under acquisition challenged 
the acquisition notifications on the ground that Lt. 
Governor did not apply his mind for dispensation of the 
enquiry under Section 5A of the Act and that resort to the 
urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act 
G was unwarranted and unjustified. The High Court 
dismissed the writ petitions. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
0 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
RAM DHAR! JINDAL MEMORIAL TRUST v. UNION 
527 
OF INDIA 
HELD: 1. If the government seeks to invoke its power A 
of urgency, it has to first form the opinion that the land 
for the stated public purpose is urgently needed. Such 
opinion has to be founded on the need for immediate 
possession of the land for carrying out the purpose for 
which land is sought to be compulsorily acquired. The 
B 
use of power of urgency under Section 17(1) and (4) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ipso facto does not result 
in elimination of enquiry under Section SA and, therefore, 
if the government intends to eliminate enquiry, then it has 
to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such c 
nature that necessitates elimination of such enquiry. The 
satisfaction of the government on twin aspects viz; (i) 
need for immediate possession of the land for carrying 
out the 

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