VED PRAKASH AND ORS. versus MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, LUCKNOW AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
VED PRAKASH AND ORS. 
V. 
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, LUCKNOW AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 48(1)-Land acquisition-Land 
covered by Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act-Land claimed to 
C be abadi land-Exemption from acquisition sought-On litigation direction 
by Supreme Ccmrt to State authority to consider the nature of land for 
considering its exemption from acquisition-Representation to State authority-
Land found not liable to be exempted from acquisition as the same was not 
abadi land~Writ petition dismissed by High Court-On appeal, held: Land 
not liable to be exempted-Representation rightly rejected by the State 
D Authority-Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976-United 
Provinces Village Abadi Act, 1948-UP. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Judicial Review of 
administrative or executive action-Scope of-Held: while examining such 
action infirmity in the decision making process and not the decision itself is 
E to be seen. 
F 
Certain lands were acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued. Appellant filed writ 
petitions in High Court challenging the acquisition on the ground that the 
lands acquired were having abadi and in view of existing State policy such 
lands could not be acquired. The petition was dismissed. In Special Leave 
Petitions against the same, the Court in Om Prakash case held that the 
State authorities were not justified in invoking Section 17(4) of the 
Acquisition Act for dispensing with inquiry under Section SA of the Act. 
The Court refused to.exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 
G 136 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances cif the case and 
instead of relegating the appellants to the remedy under Section 5-A of 
the Acquisition Act, relegated them to the remedy by way of suitable 
representation before appropriate authority u/s 48 of the Acquisition Act 
to decide as to whether appellants' lands were to be treated immune from 
acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were having abadi thereon 
H 
1000 
YEO PRAKASH v. MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY 
1001 
acquisition proceedings on the ground that they were having abadi thereon A 
and hence covered by policy decision of the State not to acquire such land. 
Pursuant to the directions of the Court, appellants made 
representations before the State ·Government. The authority heard the 
appellants, and on inspecting the spot found that most of the land owners 
were not original residents of the village but from different parts or the . B 
country; that no abadi was found on the land and the constructions on 
the lands were in scattered position and were done after the notifications 
u/ss. 4 and 6 of Acquisition Act were issued. The authority concluded that 
it was· not feasible to release the lands of the appellants from acquisition 
u/s 48(1) of the Acquisition Act. Hence, the appellants approached High C 
Court by filing Writ Petitions challenging the order of the authorities. High 
.Court dismissed the Writ Petitions holding that administrative authority 
could not be expected to discuss each and every evidence; that the 
authority had recorded a finding on each and every aspect required to be 
considered as per the directions given by Supreme Court; that 
consideration of all the representations of the appellants by the authority D 
and passing of common order did not suffer from any difficulty or 
infirmity because the entire material and evidence placed before it had 
been considered before passing the impugned order. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that in view of the order 
of Supreme Court in Om Prakash case acquisition proceedings was 
otherwise bad but the directions were given only in order not to disturb 
the scheme for the purpose for which large area was acquired; and that 
the order by the Competent Authority was violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution, being arbitrary and discriminatory in view of the policy of 
E 
the Government of U.P. 
F 
Respondent authority contended that in the order passed by the 
competent authority directions given by Supreme Court were correctly 
followed and the competent authority after a finding of fact and after 
considering the feasibility of releasing the lands from acquisition under 
Section 48(1) rejected the representations; and that the High Court was G 
right and

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