STATE OF U.P. ETC. versus SMT. PISTA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 12-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
STATE OF U.P. ETC. 
v. 
SMT. PISTA DEVI & ORS. 
. 
. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 5A, 6, 17(1), (4) and 17(/A)~ 
Acquisition for urban housing-Urgency-Inquiry dispensed with-
Post-notification delay of one year in publishing declaration-Action 
'-
whether vitiated-Whether Government can take possession of land, 
other than waste and arable. 
Delhi Development Act, 1957: s. 21(2)-Provision of relief to 
A 
B 
c 
those being expropriated-Principle recommended to be followed by 
D 
other Development Authorities. 
The appellants are owners of arable land lying on the outskirts of. 
Meerut City. The land was sought to be acquired by tbe Meerut De-
velopment Authority for its scheme to provide housing accommodation 
to the residents of the city. The Collector, recommended the acquisition 
E 
of the said land on December 13, 1979, stating that in view of tbe acute 
shortage of houses in tbe city it was necessary that tbe State Govern-
ment invokes. 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The 
notification ~der s. 4( 1) of the Act dated April 29, 1980 was published 
in the Gazette on July 12, 1980, stating that tbe provisions Qf sub-s. (1) 
of s. 17 of the Act were applicable to the said land and !bat s. 5-A shall 
F 
..__not apply to tbe proposed acquisition. After publication of the notifica-
tion the Collector noticed some errors in it which needed to be corrected 
by a corrigendum. The corrigendum and the declaration under s •. 6 of 
the Act were issued on Max 1, 1981. The possession of the land was . 
taken and handed over to the ;\uthority in July 1982 .. 
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning 
the notification under s. 4 and declaration 111\der s. 6 of the Act alleging 
that the action of the Government in invoking s. 17(1) and dispensing 
with the inquiry under s. SA were not called for since the case of 
urgency put forward by the State Government had been belied by the 
G 
delay of nearly one year that had ensued between the date of notilica-
H 
743 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
tion under s. 4. and the declaration under s. 6 of the Act. It was also 
contended that in the large extent of the land acquired there were some 
buildings here and there and so the acquisition was not justified since 
these portions were not either waste or' arable lands which could be 
dealt with under s. I7(I). 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The High Court being of the view that the failure to issue the 
declaration under s. 6 of the Act immediately after the notification under s. 
4 was fatal, held that the notification dated April 29, I984J'under s. 4 which 
contained a direction under s. I7(4) dispensing with the inquiry under s. 
SA of the Act was invalid and, therefore, both the notification under s. 4and 
the subsequent declaration made under s. 6 were liable to be quashed. 
In the appeals by special leave to this Court on the question: 
Whether in the circumstances of the case it could be said that on ac-
count of mere delay of nearly one year in the publication of the declara-
tion it could be said that the order made by the State Government 
dispensing with compliance with s. SA at the time of publication .of the 
notification under s. 4(I) would stand vitiated in the absence of any 
other material. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: I. I Having regard to the enormous growth of population 
in the country the provision of housing accommodation in these days 
has become a matter of national urgency. The schemes relating to de-
velopment of residential areas in the urban centres are so urgent that it 
is necessary to invoke s. I7(1) of the Act to dispense with the inquiry 
under s. SA. [749F-G] 
1.2 In the instant case, there is no allegation of any kind of ma/a 
fides on the part of either the Government or any of the officers, nor do 
the respondents contend that there was no urgent necessity for provid-
ing housing accommodation to a large number of people of the city 
·during the relevanttime. [749E] 
I. 3 The mere fact that on account of some error on the part of the 
officials processing the case at the level of the Secretariat there was a 
post-notification delay of nearly one year in issuing declaration under s. 
6 is, therefore, not by itself sufficient to hold that the decision taken by 
the State Government under s. 17(1) and (4) of the Act at the time of the 
issue of the notification under s. · 4(1) of the A

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