UNION OF INDIA versus SH. GANSHYAM DASS KEDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 12-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SH. GANSHYAM DASS KEDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARlA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Secs. SA, 17(1) & 17(4}--Acquisition for 
planned development-Dispensing with enquiry-Notification without specifi-
c cally reciting the nature of urgencr-fleld, subjective satisfaction of the govern-
ment sufficient. 
The Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving mill after obtaining the 
sanction of Delhi Municipal Corporation in 1951 had earmarked 3 acres 
of land for the construction of Staff Quarters. The Mill had become 
D nonfunctional and the employees purchased the lands by registered sale 
deeds for residential purpose. Thereafter, the lands became part of ac-
quired lands for planned development of Delhi under sections 17(1) and 
17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dispensing with the enquiry under 
section SA. These lands were located in midst of area reserved for Ednca-
E lion and Research. 
F 
G 
The acquisitions were challenged before the High Court on the 
ground that the Government was not justified in invoking section 17(1) 
read with Section 17(4) of the Act of 1894. The High Court quashed the 
notification on the ground that the notification did not recite the nature 
of the urgency. On appeal before this Court, it was pointed out that the 
respondents have purchased the lands long before the masterplans were 
prepared. 
Partly allowing the appeals the Court 
HELD : 1. The view taken by High Court is not legal and correct. It 
cannot be said that the notification should specifically recite the nature of 
urgency in an acquisition wherever an enquiry is dispensed with. It is 
enough, if the record discloses the consideration by the Government on 
H urgency for taking action under Ss.17(1) and (2). (625-G, 626-C] 
624 
' 
U.0.l. v. G.D. KEDIA 
625 
Aflatoon & Ors. v. Lt. Governor Delhi & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 802 relied A 
on. 
The Court directed that since the Respondents have purchased the 
land long before the master plans have been prepared for residential 
pnrpose and on the eastern side residential Oats are in existence, there 
may not be snch difficulty of change of user of the land and the plan leaving B 
ont the portion of the land for the residential purpose. The appropriate 
Government would suitably consider withdrawal from acquisition to the 
above extent only and allow nse for residential purpose. They would take 
proper steps to release that part of the land which is necessary for the 
respondents to construct their houses. The area needed for amenities like C 
road etc. need to be provided to these 19 plots and the same would also be 
set apart. Necessary permission accordingly be given to the respondents 
as per rulcJ by granting sanction to construct their honses. The direction 
for release ol lla< land not be treated as a precedent in any other case. It 
would be confined to the special facts in this case. [627-G-H, 628-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4579 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.91 of the Delhi High Court 
in C.W. No. 3084 of 1987. 
V.C. Mahajan, S.N. Sikka and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
Ravinder Sethi and V.B. Sahara ya for D .D .A for the Respondents. 
Dr. R.F. Nariman, for M.P. Shorawala and B.R. Sabharwal for the 
D 
E 
Respondent. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have heard the counsel for the parties. The mam question 
canvassed before the Division Bench in W.P. Nos. 3084/87 was that the 
Government was not justified in invoking s.17(1) read with s.17(4) of Land G 
AcquisJ'tion Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dispensing with the enquiry 
under s.5A. The High Court following its earlier decision has quashed the 
notification on the ground that the notification did not recite the nature of 
the urgency. Planned Development of Delhi is not urgent and, therefore, 
the exercise of the power under s.17(4) was illegal. We do not find that the H 
626 
I 
; 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A view taken by tbe High Court is legal and correct. lnAjlatoon & Ors. v. Lt. 
Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975) 1 SCR 802, tbe Constitution Bench of this 
Court had upheld the exercise of power under s.17( 4) dispensing tbe 
enquiry under s5-A. It was for planned development of Delhi which would 
take long time for development. Yet tbis court upheld tbe exercise of the 
B 
power of urgency .. It is subjective satisfaction of tbe Government based on 
tbe material on record
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.