UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus MOHIUDDIN MASOOD AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 19-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
v.
MOHIUDDIN MASOOD AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6419 of 2019)
AUGUST 19, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.5A, 6, 17 – Request made by
ITBP for acquisition of land for establishing Battalion Headquarter
of ITBP in view of increase in counter Insurgency Operations, Law
and Order duties of ITBP, VVIP security duties and Disaster
Management Operations – Urgent acquisition of land – High Court
held that there were no justifiable reasons to invoke the urgency
clause and to dispense with the enquiry u/s.5A of the Act – On
appeal, held: For establishing Battalion headquarter, a large chunk
of land approximately 72 to 75 acres of land was required – Such a
huge land was required to be first identified at suitable places –
Some time is bound to be consumed between the proposal and
issuance of the notification under s.4 of the Act – The said aspect
was not at all considered by the High Court – Therefore, merely
that some time was taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual
s.4 notification, High Court was not justified in observing that there
was no urgency at all and/or there were no grounds to invoke the
urgency clause – There was a real urgency and, therefore, urgency
clause and s.17 was rightly invoked dispensing with the enquiry
under s.5A of the Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition of large chunk of
land for establishing ITBP Battalion Headquarters – So far as
respondent nos.1 and 2 original writ petitioners were concerned,
out of the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders
of area 1.138 hectares, 1.2800 hectares and 0.2970 hectare only –
The total land acquired was 28.1398 hectares and other land owners
did not question the acquisition – Therefore, High Court ought not
to have set aside the notifications under ss.4 and 6 respectively
which were not under challenge by the other land owners except
respondent nos.1 and 2.
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 696
696
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
697
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.17(4) – Non-compliance of
s.17(4) alleged –  In the counter affidavit of Tehsildar, it was
specifically stated that after the notification under s.4 of the Act
was issued, the ITBP deposited the estimated amount of compensation
in the year 2009/2010 itself and the land owners/tenure holders
were served with the notice to withdraw and/or take 80% of the
estimated amount of compensation but they refused to take the
compensation – Therefore, thereafter it was not open for the original
writ petitioners to make the grievance that they were not paid any
compensation – Therefore, it cannot be said that there was non-
compliance of s.17(4) of the Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there was a time gap of only three months between
the notification under Section 4 and notification under Section 6
respectively of the Act.  There was not much delay in considering
the request made by the ITBP to acquire the land.  Right from
the very beginning the ITBP requested to acquire the land
urgently as the land was urgently required by the ITBP to establish
Battalion headquarter due to increase in Counter Insurgency
Operations, Law and order duties of ITBP and Disaster
Management Operations. For establishing such Battalion
headquarter, a large chunk of land approximately 72 to 75 acres
of land was required.  Such a huge land was required to be first
identified at suitable places.  Therefore, some time is bound to
be consumed between the proposal and issuance of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act.  Therefore, merely that
some time was taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual
Section 4 notification, the High Court was not justified in
observing that there was no urgency at all and/or there were no
grounds to invoke the urgency clause. [Paras 6.1, 6.2] [704-D-G]
2. On the land in question total admeasuring 28.1398
hectares, there was a development on 90 to 95% of the land
acquired and 90 to 95% of the land has been put to use by the
ITBP.  So far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 were concerned, out of
the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders of
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. MOHIUDDIN MASOOD
AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
plot nos. 2348 area 1.138 hectares, 2353 area 1.2800 hectares
and 2354 area 0.2970 hectare only. The total land acquired was

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