UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KRISHAN LAL ARNEJA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 28-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
KRISHAN LAL ARNEJA AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Ss. 4 and 17(1)(4)/Requisitioning and 
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953/Defence of India Rules: 
Acquisition proceedings in respect of certain properties-Issuance of C 
Notification-Challenge to-Quashed by High Court-On appeals, Held: 
The property/properties could be acquisitioned by the Government on ground 
of urgency-However, existence of exigency could be ascertained on the 
basis of surrounding circumstances and available material on record and to 
the subjective satisfaction of the authorities concerned-While applying D 
urgency clause the State should indeed act with due care and responsibility--
Invoking of urgency clause cannot be a substitute or support for the laxity, 
lethargy or lack of care on the part of the State Administration-There was 
no material circumstances to support invoking of urgency clause by the 
authorities concerned 
Appeals filed in other connected matters on ground that facts and 
circumstances are distinguishable-Held:-The Notification was common 
and composite in respect of all the properties-Since facts and circumstances 
in the connected cases are similar, the ratio of the decision could appropriately 
be applied 
Section 17-Acquisition of immovable properties on ground of urgency 
-Exercise of extra-ordinary power-Held: It could be resorted to only in 
exceptional case of real urgency for public purpose since it not only deprives 
a land owner of his right to file objections in respect of the property proposed 
E 
F 
to be acquisitioned but also dispenses with the inquiry under Section 5A. of G 
the Act. 
. 
Section 5(A)(3)-Acquisition proceedings-Tenants-Right to 
challenge-Held: A tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land/ 
property could challenge it. 
801 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The properties in question were requisitioned by the appellants-Union 
of India and Ors. under the Defence of India Rules and Requisitioning and 
Acquisition of Immovable Property Act for the purposes of Offices and 
residential quarters to its Officers. The provisions of the Act were to lapse 
on March 10, 1987. The appellants instead of releasing the properties (14 in 
number) notified them on March 6, 1987 for acquisition. Some of the owners 
B of the properties challenged the validity of the Notification by filing Writ 
Petitions. Notifications and also acquisition proceedings were quashed by the 
High Court holding that there was no urgency whatsoever for invoking the 
provisions of Section 17(1) and ( 4) of the Land Acquisition Act which denied 
the owners of the properties of their rights of raising objections under Section 
C S(A) of the Act; and that the authorities had no explanation for the non-
compliance of provisions of Law under Section 17(3A) of the Act by not making 
payment of compensation in terms of Award passed by the Court in lieu of 
acquisition of the properties. Aggrieved, Union of India filed appeals which 
were dismissed, and later Review Petitions were also dismissed by this Court. 
Union of India filed appeals in the present cases on the ground that the 
D decisions in the decided connected matters are distinguishable and not 
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases in these appeals. 
It was contended by the appellants that the correctness of the decision 
in Banwari Lal & Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India and Ors., DRJ (1991) Suppl. 
317, one of the connected matters, was not considered in Union of India and 
E Ors. v. Shakuntala Gupta (Dead) by Lrs., (2002) 7 SCC 98, the other connected 
matter, and that the decision in that case is distinguishable from the facts of 
the present cases/appeals. 
Respondents submitted that since decision in the connected matters fully 
cover the case against the appellants. They cannot re-agitate on the same 
F issue; and that the Notification as well as ground of urgency clause therein 
was composite one in respect of all the 14 tJroperties sought to be 
acquisitioned. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The issue of urgency could be justified on the basis of the 
surrounding circumstances and the records available at the time of subjective 
satisfaction of authorities while invoking Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land 
Acquisition Act. This Court had held in Shakuntala Gupta (Dead) by Lrs., 
one of t

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