eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 142 of 19710/21/2011urgency contemplated under Section 17 (1) and unforeseen emergency contemplated under Section 17 (2) existsthat by itself would not contain the need for dispensing with 5A inquiry. It is possible in a given case the urgencynoticed by the appropriate Government under Section 17(1) or the unforeseen emergency under Section 17(2)itself may be of such degree that it could require the appropriate Government on that very basis to dispense withthe inquiry under Section 5A but then there is a need for application of mind by the appropriate Government thatsuch an urgency for dispensation of the 5A inquiry is inherent in the two types of urgencies contemplated underSection 17 (1) and (2) of the Act.33. An argument was sought to be advanced on behalf of the appellants that once the appropriate Governmentcomes to the conclusion that there is an urgency or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(1) and (2), thedispensation of enquiry under Section 5A becomes automatic and the same can be done by a composite ordermeaning thereby that there no need for the appropriate Government to separately apply its mind for any furtheremergency for dispensation with an inquiry under Section 5A. We are unable to agree with the above argumentbecause sub- section (4) of Section 17 itself indicates that the "government may direct that provisions of Section5A shall not apply" which makes it clear that not in every case where the appropriate Government has come tothe conclusion that there is urgency and under sub- section (1) or unforeseen emergency under sub-section (2) ofSection 17 the Government will ipso facto have to direct the dispensation of inquiry.34. A careful reading of the above judgment shows that this Court in the said case of Nandeshwar Prasad's case(supra) has also held that there should an application of mind to the facts of the case with special reference to thisconcession of 5A inquiry under the Act."To the same effect there is a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Krishan LalArneja reported in 2004(8) SCC 453 in which same proposition was laid down. The Apex Court laid downfollowing in paragraph 16 of the judgment which is as under:-"16. Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on the authorities under which it can dispense with the normalprocedure laid down under Section 5A of the Act in exceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot be lightlyresorted to except in case of real urgency enabling the Government to take immediate possession of the landproposed to be acquired for public purpose. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be, by itself is notsufficient to take aid of Section 17 to use this extraordinary power as use of such power deprives a land owner ofhis right in relation to immoveable property to file objections for the proposed acquisition and it also dispenseswith the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. The Authority must have subjective satisfaction of the need forinvoking urgency clause under Section 17 keeping in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that thesituation demands and the time factor i.e. whether taking possession of the property can wait for a minimumperiod within which the objections could be received from the land owners and the inquiry under Section 5A of theAct could be completed. In other words, if power under Section 17 is not exercised, the very purpose for which theland is being acquired urgently would be frustrated or defeated. Normally urgency to acquire a land for publicpurpose does not arise suddenly or overnight but sometimes such urgency may arise unexpectedly, exceptionallyor extraordinarily depending on situations such as due to earthquake, flood or some specific time-bound projectwhere the delay is likely to render the purpose nugatory or infructuous. A citizen's property can be acquired inaccordance with law but in the absence of real and genuine urgency, it may not be appropriate to deprive anaggrieved party of a fair and just opportunity of putting forth its objections for due consideration of the acquiringauthority. While applying the urgency clause, the State should indeed act with due care and responsibility.Invoking urgency clause cannot be a substitute or support for the laxity, lethargy or lack of care on the part of theState Administration."In a later case reported in (2010)11 S.C.C. 242; Anand Singh vs. State of U.P. and others all earlier cases havebeen referred to and the principles of invoking Section 17(4) of the Act have been restated. It was further laiddown in the said judgment that, generally speaking, development of an area for residential purpose or planneddevelopment takes many years and in every case of planned development dispensation of inquiry under Section5A of the Act is not required. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case further observed that ratio of two Judge Benchin State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi case (supra) is contrary to the ratio laid down in earlier three Judge Benchjudgment in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra). As noted above, in Narayan Govind Gavate's case (supra)the three Judge Bench has laid down that scheme for housing development or industrial development, barringexceptional cases, does not satisfy the invocation of Section 17(4) whereas in State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi case(supra) it was held that housing scheme is a national urgency. The principles, after referring all earlier cases, werelaid down in paragraphs 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 50 of the judgment which are as under:-"42. When the government proceeds for compulsory acquisition of particular property for public purpose, the onlyright that the owner or the person interested in the property has, is to submit his objections within the prescribed
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 143 of 19710/21/2011time under Section 5A of the Act and persuade the State authorities to drop the acquisition of that particular landby setting forth the reasons such as the unsuitability of the land for the stated public purpose; the grave hardshipthat may be caused to him by such expropriation, availability of alternative land for achieving public purpose etc.Moreover, the right conferred on the owner or person interested to file objections to the proposed acquisition isnot only an important and valuable right but also makes the provision for compulsory acquisition just and inconformity with the fundamental principles of natural justice.43. The exceptional and extraordinary power of doing away with an enquiry under Section 5A in a case wherepossession of the land is required urgently or in unforeseen emergency is provided in Section 17 of the Act. Suchpower is not a routine power and save circumstances warranting immediate possession it should not be lightlyinvoked. The guideline is inbuilt in Section 17 itself for exercise of the exceptional power in dispensing withenquiry under Section 5A. Exceptional the power, the more circumspect the government must be in its exercise.The government obviously, therefore, has to apply its mind before it dispenses with enquiry under Section 5A onthe aspect whether the urgency is of such a nature that justifies elimination of summary enquiry under Section 5A.44. A repetition of statutory phrase in the notification that the state government is satisfied that the land specifiedin the notification is urgently needed and provision contained in Section 5A shall not apply, though may initiallyraise a presumption in favour of the government that pre-requisite conditions for exercise of such power havebeen satisfied, but such presumption may be displaced by the circumstances themselves having no reasonablenexus with the purpose for which power has been exercised. Upon challenge being made to the use of powerunder Section 17, the government must produce appropriate material before the court that the opinion fordispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A has been formed by the government after due application of mindon the material placed before it.45. It is true that power conferred upon the government under Section 17 is administrative and its opinion isentitled to due weight, but in a case where the opinion is formed regarding the urgency based on considerationsnot germane to the purpose, the judicial review of such administrative decision may become necessary.46. As to in what circumstances the power of emergency can be invoked are specified in Section 17(2) butcircumstances necessitating invocation of urgency under Section 17(1) are not stated in the provision itself.Generally speaking, the development of an area (for residential purposes) or a planned development of city, takesmany years if not decades and, therefore, there is no reason why summary enquiry as contemplated underSection 5A may not be held and objections of land owners/persons interested may not be considered. In manycases on general assumption, likely delay in completion of enquiry under Section 5A is set up as a reason forinvocation of extraordinary power in dispensing with the enquiry little realizing that an important and valuable rightof the person interested in the land is being taken away and with some effort enquiry could always be completedexpeditiously.47. The special provision has been made in Section 17 to eliminate enquiry under Section 5A in deserving andcases of real urgency. The government has to apply its mind on the aspect that urgency is of such nature thatnecessitates dispensation of enquiry under Section 5A. We have already noticed few decisions of this Court.There is conflict of view in the two decisions of this Court viz.; Narayan Govind Gavate and Pista Devi. In OmPrakash this Court held that decision in Pista Devi must be confined to the fact situation in those days when it wasrendered and the two-Judge Bench could not have laid down a proposition contrary to the decision in NarayanGovind Gavate.50. Use of the power by the government under Section 17 for `planned development of the city' or `thedevelopment of residential area' or for `housing' must not be as a rule but by way of an exception. Suchexceptional situation may be for the public purpose viz., rehabilitation of natural calamity affected persons;rehabilitation of persons uprooted due to commissioning of dam or housing for lower strata of the society urgently;rehabilitation of persons affected by time bound projects, etc. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In anycase, sans real urgency and need for immediate possession of the land for carrying out the stated purpose, heavyonus lies on the government to justify exercise of such power."In the case of Dev Saran and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2011(4) SCC 769, invocation ofurgency under Section 17(4) of the Act, where the land was acquired for construction of District Jail, was held notto be so urgent so as to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act. Following was laid down in paragraphs 19, 20, 35, 36,37, 38 and 39, which are as under:-"19. Therefore, the concept of public purpose on this broad horizon must also be read into the provisions of
Page 1 and 2:
JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93: JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
show all

eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?