SRI RADHY SHYAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 8 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 15-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 8 S.C.R. 359 
SRI RADHY SHYAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3261 of 2011) 
APRIL 15, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 17(1) & (4) and 5-A: 
A 
B 
Acquisition of land - Power of eminent domain - Power c 
conferred upon the State to acquire private property -
Invocation of urgency clause and dispensing with enquiry as 
envisaged under s.5-A - When permissible - Principles re-
stated. 
Writ petition filed by appellants questioning the 
D 
acquisition .of their/and for planned industrial development 
of District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater NO/DA 
Industrial Development Authority by invoking s.17(1) and 
17(4) of the Act, as amended by Uttar Pradesh Act No.8 of 
1974 - Plea of appellants that there was no justification to 
E 
invoke the urgency clause and to dispense with the inquiry 
envisaged under s. 5-A - High Court non-suited the appellants 
and dismissed the writ petition - On appeal, held: The 
appellants had succeeded in making out a strong case for 
deeper examination of the issues raised in the writ petition 
F 
and the High Court committed serious error by summarily 
non-suiting them - The assertion by the appellants that there 
was no urgency in the acquisition of land; that the concerned 
authorities did not apply mind to the relevant factors and 
records and arbitrarily invoked the urgency provisions and 
G 
thereby denied him the minimum opportunity of hearing in 
terms of s.5-A(1) and (2), should have been treated by the 
High Court as sufficient for calling upon the respondents to 
file their response and produce the relevant records to justify 
359 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 8 S.CJ _ 
A the invoking of urgency provisions - On facts, the acquisition 
was primarily meant to cater private interest in the name of 
industrial development of the district - Even if planned 
industrial development of the district is treated as public 
purpose within the meaning of s. 4, on facts there was no 
B urgency which could justify the exercise of power by the State 
Government under s.17(1) and 17(4) - The time required for 
ensuring compliance of the provisions contained in s. 5-A 
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be portrayed as delay 
which will frustrate the purpose of acquisition - There was no 
c wa"ant to exclude the application of s.5-A which represent the 
statutory embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem -
There is also merit in the appellants' plea that the acquisition 
of their land was vitiated due to violation of the doctrine of 
equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch 
0 as the respondents adopted the policy of pick and choose in 
acquiring some parcels of land - The Court cannot refuse to 
protect the legal and constitutional rights of the appellants 
merely because some other landowners did not come forward 
to challenge the illegitimate exercise of power by the State 
Government - Respondent No. 1 directed to pay cost of 
E Rs. 5, 00, 0001- to the appellants for forcing unwarranted 
litigation on them - However, the respondents shall be free 
to proceed from the stage of s.4 notification and take 
appropriate action after complying with s.5-A(1) and (2) - If 
the appellants fee/ aggrieved by the fresh exercise 
F undertaken by the State Government then they shall be free 
to avail appropriate legal remedy - Constitution of India, 1950 
- Article 14. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 300A -
G Acquisition of land - Invocation of s.17(1) and/or 17(4) - Writ 
petition filed by landowner under Art.226 - Held: While 
examining the land owner's challenge to the acquisition of land 
in a petition filed under Article 226, the High Court should not 
adopt a pedantic approach - It should decide the matter 
H keeping in view the constitutional goals of social and 
1 SRI RADHY SHYAM (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 
361 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
economic justice and the fact that even though the right to 
A 
propetty is no longer a fundamental right, the same continues 
to be an impottant constitutional right and in terms of Atticle 
300-A, no person can be deprived of his propetty except by 
authority of law - In cases where the acquisition is made by 
invoking s.4 read with s.17(1) and/or 17(4), the High Coutt 
B 
should insist upon filing of reply affidavit by the respondents 
and production of the relevant records and carefully scrutinize 
the same before pronoun
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.