eLegalix - Allahabad High Court Judgment Information System ...

JUDGMENT/ORDER IN - WRIT - C No. 37443 of 2011 at Allahabad Dated-21.10....http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.doPage 181 of 19710/21/201101.09.200622.08.2008Yusufpur ChakShahberi56522 of 2007Haris Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.17.05.200610.09.200727.11.2007Khanpur38793 of 2008Jasraj Singh31.01.200830.06.200816.09.2008Tusiyana69534 of 2006Sudhir Chandra Agarwal10.04.200630.06.200629.02.2008It has further been submitted that against Division Bench judgment of this court in Jasaraj Singh, Sudhir ChandraAgarwal and Munshi Singh, the special leave to appeal were also filed in the Supreme Court which weredismissed.We have perused the judgment of Division Bench of this Court as referred above in which cases various DivisionBench of this court have dismissed the writ petition challenging the notifications and the arguments that StateGovernment wrongly invoked Section 17(1) and 17(4) was repelled. The view expressed by aforesaid DivisionBench is to the same effect as has been expressed by Division Bench in Harishchand's case.Thus the issue to be considered is as to whether the view taken by Division Bench in Harishchand's case andseveral cases as noticed above is correct view to be approved by the Full Bench or the view taken by DivisionBench in Har Karan Singh's is to be approved.The judgment of Harischand as extracted above gives following reasons for holding that invocation of Section 17was correct:"We have perused the original records and we find that the District Magistrate had not indicated various factorswhich led him to arrive at a conclusion that the land was required urgently and there was justification for acquiringthe land. The State Government having regard to the letter/reports on record formed an opinion that it was a fitcase to strike the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. We are, therefore of the opinionthat the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner have no force."From perusal of the above reasoning of the Division Bench it is clear that the Division Bench took the aforesaidview on the basis of District magistrate having indicated in his conclusion that the land was required urgently andthere was justification for acquiring the land.We have noticed that three Judge Bench in Narayan Govind Gavate Vs. State of Maharashtra held that the merefact that there is urgency under Section 17(1) is not sufficient for invocation of Section 17(4) but the mind of theofficer or the authority has to be applied to the question whether the urgency is of such a nature that even thesummary proceedings under Section 5A should be eliminated. Following observations were made by the Apexcourt in paragraph 38:"Now, the purpose of Section 17(4) of the Act is, obviously, not merely to confine action under it to waste andarable land but also to situations in which an inquiry under Section 5A will serve no useful purpose, or, for someoverriding reason, it should be dispensed with. The mind of the Officer or authority concerned has to be applied tothe question whether there is ,an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under Section 5Aof the Act should be eliminated. It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiryunder Section 5A which has to be considered."