LexSTATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS. versus RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS.
_.,#..
A
'
v.
RADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.
JANUARY 11, 1989
•
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
):_
'
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 4, 6 and 17-'After the date
of the publication of the notification'-Effect of-Introduction of by the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984--Whether section 6 declara-
~
tion can be issued simultaneously with section 4 notification-To be
c issued on a subsequent date.
Statutory Interpretation: Job of the Court-Interpret the intention
y
of legislature by the words used-Explore intentions at time the law was
made.
D
The U.P. Legislature enacted in 1973 the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development Act. On or about 11th September, 1974
Lucknow had been declared to be a development area by a notification.
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 was made effective from
24th September, 1984. Notifications under section 4(1) and a declara-
,-\
lion under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on
E 8th December, 1984 in respect of the Housing Scheme (Gomti Nagar)
Phase II on the 28th December, 1984 in respect of Dalibagh Housing
Scheme, and on the 21st February, 1980 in respect of the Housing
~
Scheme (Gomti Nagar) Phase.HI.
The owners of the land which were sought to be acquired by the
~
F
aforesaid notifications filed writ petitions in the High Court and
obtained stay orders in respect of taking over of possession of the
diverse lands on the ground that the notifications under section 4(1) and
section 6 of the Act have been passed simultaneously.
A Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued
G on the 6th May, 1985 declaring that the lands of the respondents were
needed for a public purpose viz., construction of market yard for the
-{.
Krishi Utpadan Samiti. The Notification further contained a declara-
lion that since there was urgency for the acquisition the provisions of
action 17(1A) and section 17(4) of the Act shall apply and the provisions
of section SA shall not apply. On the same day i.e. on 6th May, 1985
H another Notification was issued under section 6 making a declaration
92
+.
~'""
""'..~
><
f~
1'
I
"'
STATE OF U.P. v. R.S. NIGAM
93
that the land was required for the public purpose viz., construction of
a market yard. That Notification also contained direction as contempla-
ted in section 17(1) and (IA) authorising the Collector to take possession
of the land even before the declaration of the award under section 11.
Aggrieved by the acquisition the respondents filed two writ peti-
!ions and contended before the Division Bench of the High Court that in
view of the amendments introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amend-
ment) Act, 1984, the declaration as contemplated under section 6 could
not have been made on the same day on which the Notification under
section 4 was published, and that after the amendment, the Notification
under section 6 of the Act can only be issued after the Notification under
section 4 was published.
The High Court was of the view that prior to the amendment, a
declaration under section 6 could be made simultaneously with the
publication of the Notification under section 4(1), but after the amend-
ment, a declaration can only be made "after the date of publication of
the Notification under section 4(1)" and came to the conclusion that
there must be difference of dates between the date of the publication of
the Notification under section 4 and section 6. The High Court held that
the notification under section 6 was therefore rendered illegal and as
such the appellants were not entitled to take possession of the respon-
dents' land. It accordingly quashed the Notification dated 6th May,
1985 issued under section 6 of the Act.
In the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the
State-appellants that the amendment of section 17(4) by the words
"after the date of the publication of the notification" was necessitated
because of the change of lite expressions in sub-section (I) of section 4
which for the first time gave a definition of the date of the publication of
the notification. Similarly, in section 6(2) the last date of the publicatiou
as enjoined in section 6 had been defined as the date of publication. For
this purpose, it was necessary to introduce the expression "after the
date of the publication of the notification" under sub-section (4) of
section 17.
On the questiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.