THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. versus KESHAV PRASAD SINGH

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 25-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
KESHAV PRASAD SINGH 
,-..,,,. 
JULY 25, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894:Sections 4( 1), 5-A, 6 and 17(4). 
State-Acquisition of land for constrnction of PWD office-Constrnc_- c 
tion of building and wall for protection of building-Encroachment of land 
during construction-Suit by owner-Injunction by Civil Court-Direction to 
remove encroachment and delivery of possession to owner-State instead 
filing appeal and issuing Notification for disputed land and dispensing en-
quiry-Exercise of power of eminent domain by State-Held justified in view 
of the public purpose. 
D 
The appellant-State acquired certain lands for construction of PWD 
office in Azamgarh city. Accordingly, a building and a compound wall to 
protect the said building was constructed. Subsequently, in a suit filed by 
the respondent, it was found by the Civil Court that while constructing the E 
building the respondent's land had been encroached upon. Consequently 
a mandatory injunction was issued to the PWD Department to demolish 
encroachment and give delivery of possession of the encroached land to 
the respondent. Instead of so doing, the State filed an appeal and simul-
taneously exercised its power of eminent domain and issued a Notification 
under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Further exercising F 
its power under section 17(4) of the Act the State dispensed with the 
enquiry under Section 5-A. 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which 
quashed the Notification as well as the declaration on the ground that (i) G 
the power exercised under section 17(1) was not justified since the land 
was neither waste nor arrable land and that, therefore, the Notification 
., 
dispensing with the enquiry under section S(A) was illegal; and (ii) a 
mandatory injunction for demolition of the compound wall having been 
issued by the Civil Court, the exercise of the power under section 4(1) of 
the Act was colourable. 
H 
329 
A 
B 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
In ~peal to this Court, it was contended for the State that the view 
taken by th~ High Court was clearly unsustainable because (a) in the 
circumstances of the case the State was justified in exercising its power of 
eminent domain and issuing the Notification under Section 4(1) and (b) 
since the compound wall was already constructed and the mandatory 
injunction was operating against the appellant for its demolition, the 
Government was justified in exercising its power under section 17(1) read 
with section 17(4) for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
C 
HELD : 1. The conclusion of the High Court was clearly illegal. When 
the land in ques~ion was needed for a public purpose i.e. as part of public 
office, the State is entitled to exercise its power of eminent domain and 
would be justified to acquire the land according to law. Section 4(1) was, 
therefore, correctly invoked to acquire the land in dispute. It is true that 
D 
the State had not admitted that its officers had encroached upon the 
respondent's land and had carried the matter in appeal. The finding of the 
Civil Court was that the property belongs to the respondent. The factum 
of the action under the Act implies admission of the title of the respondent 
to the extent of land found by the civil court to be an encroachment. 
Though the State chose to file the appeal which was · pending, better 
E judgment appears to have prevailed on the State to resort to the power of 
eminent domain instead of taking a decision on merits from a Court of 
Law. In view of the fact that the PWD office building was already con-
structed and a compound wall was needed to make the building safe and 
secure and construction was already made, which is a public purpose, the 
F 
exercise of power of eminent domain is perfectly warranted under law. It 
can neither be said to be colourable exercise of power nor an arbitrary 
exercise of power. [333-A-C] 
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Government was 
justified in exercising its power under section 17 ( 4) invoking urgency clause 
G and dispensing with the enquiry under section SA. By no stretch of imagina-
tion it could be said that there was no public purpose, for which enquiry 
under section 5-A could be made and decision taken. In that view of the 
matter, the High Court was clearly in error in all

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