TIKA RAM & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 09-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 905 
... 
~ .. 
TIKA RAM & ORS. 
A 
... 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998) 
J 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 
-' 
8 
' 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6(2) and s. 
17(4) (as amended by Amending Act No. 68of1984) - Land 
Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, c 
1991 - Issuance of simultaneous notifications u/ss. 4(1) and 
6(2) held to be invalid by Supreme Court - Legislature 
/ 
passing Amendment Act of 1991 validating the notifications 
and declarations issued between the period from date of 1984 
.. 
"' 
amendment and the judgment of Supreme Court -
D 
=r 
Constitutional validity of the validating Act challenged -
Upheld by High Court relying on judgments passed by 
.; 
Supreme Court upholding the Validating Act - On appeal, 
held: The Amending Act is valid and constitutional -
Legislature has the power to amend the law validating the 
E 
( 
actions declared invalid by a court of law - Such amendment 
is not an incursion on the judicial power of the court - The 
4 
provisions of Validating Act is not ultra vires Articles 245, 246 
·"' 
of Constitution - The provisions are also not violative of 
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A and 300A of the Constitution for F 
invidious discrimination - On facts invocation of the the 
urgency clause was justified - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A, 300A, 245 and 246. 
In a land acquisition proceedings, notifications under 
Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) of Land G 
j 
Acquisition Act were issued simultaneously. The same, 
were challenged and the High Court held that 
simultaneous notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(2) 
could not be issued, particularly, after the amendment of 
905 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Section 17(4) of the Act, which provision was amended 
by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. State of Uttar Pradesh 
filed Special Leave Petition, where the order passed by 
the High Court was upheld in State of Uttar Pradesh v. 
Radhey Sh yam Nigam 1989 (1) SCC 591. The Court 
B observed that it was open to the appellants to issue a 
fresh declaration under Section 6. The State, instead of 
issuing fresh declaration, brought a Bill before the State 
Legislature. It was decided to amend the. Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to Uttar Pradesh 
c to provide for validating the proceedings of land 
acquisition in respect of which the notifications under 
sub Section (1) of Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section 
17 of the said Act had been published in the Gazette after 
September 24, 1984 (the date .of amendment) but before 
0 
January H, 1989 (the date of judgment of the Supreme 
Court) and the declaration under Section 6 which had 
been issued either simultaneously or at any time after the 
application in the Gazette of the said notification under 
Section 4(1). This Ordinance later on got .the status of an 
E Act, being Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendmen~ 
and Validation) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. V of 1991). The Act, 
was challenged before High Court, where it was found 
to be valid, holding that the invalidity of the land 
acquisition in issuance of Section 4 and Section 6 
notifications simultaneously, was cured by this Act, 
F 
which .was made applicable with retrospective effect; and 
that the Act was not with an intention to wipe out the 
judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam. 
Validity of the Validating Act also came to be 
G challenged before this Court in Meerut Develop.m.ent 
Authority v. Satvir Singh and Ors. 1996 (11) SCC 462. Th~re, 
it was held that the exercise of the power under Section 
4(1) and declaration under Section 6 were not vitiated and 
the Validating Act was not invalid. This Court also took 
H 
> 
i 
> 
) 
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
907 
_.-I-
note of the fact that despite enactment of the Amendment A 
Act 68 of 1984, amending Section 17(4), the State needed 
further amendments and for that reason, the U.P. 
Amendment Act V of 1991 was passed by giving the 
' 
retrospective effect from the date of the Amendment Act, 
_____.._ 
1984. The effect of judgment in case of Radhey Shyam, B 
thus, was nullified. 
~ 
Writ petitions in the instant case were filed 
... 
challenging generally the land acquired at the instance 
of Lucknow Development Authority. Besides this, c 
challenge to the provisions of the Act, as also to the 
provision

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