STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. versus RAJIV BERRY & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 140 · Decided: 10-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 140 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. 
v. 
RAJIV BERRY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6900 of2009) 
AUGUST 10,2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Whether i11vocation of s. 17 (1) 
and (2) mandates invocation of s. 17 (4) - Applicability of s. 17(1) 
and 17(2) 011 011e ha11d and s.17(4) 011 the other - Ti·1•0 different 
fields of operation - Exte11t of e111erge11cy determines application of 
respective clauses of s. 17 - In the present case, the State departed 
from its initial sta11d of i11voki11g s.17(4) a11d gave landowners the 
opportu11ity conte111plated by s.5A, however, took possessio11 of the 
land prior to the passing of the award by invoking the provisions of 
s.17(1) - Land-ow11ers contended that since the provisions ofs.17(4) 
of the Act were initial~v invoked but subsequently abandoned and 
objections allowed to be filed, the State can11ot later turn back and 
take possession of the land, prior to passing of mrnrd, u/5.17(1) -
On appeal, held: s.17(1) a11d s.17(2) vest power and jurisdiction in 
the State to take possession of the land even prior to the passing of 
cnrnrd. while s.17(4) enables the State to take such possession even 
by dispensing with the require111ent of the opportunity contemplated 
uls. 5A - s.17(1) and 17(2) on the 011e hand and s.17(4) operate in 
two different fields - It is the extent of urgency/emergency that 
deter111ines the application of the re~pective clause/sub-sections of 
s.l 7 - Thus. dispensation of the opportunity contemplated by s.5A 
by invoking s.17(4) is not an invariable consequence of the 
invocation of s.17(1) or (2) - Further, mere fact that compensation 
uh. l 7(3A) was paid after the date of taking over of possession, 
would by itself not i11ralidate the acquisition - Impugned acquisition 
does not suffer from any ji111da111e111al flaw/illegality - High Court's 
iudgment setti11g aside the acquisitio11 set aside. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Sections 17(1) and Section 17(2) of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 vest power and jurisdiction in the State to 
140 
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. v. RAJIV BERRY & ORS. 
take possession of the land even prior to the passing of the award. 
Section 17(4) enables the State to take such possession even by 
dispensing with the requirement of the opportunity of filing 
objections as contemplated under Section SA of the Act. Sections 
17(1) and 17(2) on the one hand and Section 17(4) operates in 
two different fields. It is extent of urgency or emergency that 
determines the application of the respective clauses/sub-sections 
of Section 17 of the L.A. Act. In other words, even though the 
urgency clause under Section 17(1) and Section 17(2) may be 
invoked in a given case, the opportunity of filing objections under 
Section SA of the L.A. Act need not be dispensed with and can 
still be afforded. However, if the provisions of Section 17( 4) are 
invoked, the State would be empowered to dispense with the 
requirement of affording opportunity under Section SA and take 
possession prior to making of the award. The dispensation of the 
opportunity contemplated by Section SA by invoking Section 17(4) 
is not an invariable consequence of the invocation of Sections 
17(1) or (2). [Para 16] [148-G-H; 149-A-C] 
Essco Fahs Private Limited and Another vs. Stale of 
Haryana and Another (2009) 2 SCC 377 : 2008 (lS) 
SCR 779; Nageslmar Prasad and Others vs. U.P. 
Government and Others etc. AIR 1964 SC 1217 : 1964 
SCR 42S; Union of India and Others vs. Mukesh Hans 
(2004) 8 sec 14 - referred to. 
2. In the present case, the State departed from its initial 
stand of invoking Section 17(4) of the Act and gave to the land-
owners the opportunity contemplated by Section SA. However, 
it took possession of the land prior to the passing of the award by 
invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the L.A. Act. In view 
of the discussion above, it was permissible for the State to do so. 
[Para 17] [149-D) 
3. In the present case, compensation under Section 17(3A) 
was paid after the date of taking over of possession, however, 
the said fact by itself would not invalidate the acquisition. Impugned 
acquisition suffers from no fundamental flaw or illegality which 
would require the same to be struck down. Appeal filed by the 
State (C.A No.6900 of 2009) stands allowed, while C.A No. 6901 
141 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.