RAM CHAND VED PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitions and a civil appeal have been filed for quashing the land acquisition proceedings, which had been initiated between the years 1959 and 1965 by issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") but in which no awards were made up to the years 1979-80, although the declarations under S. 6 of the Act had been made in the years 1966 and 1969. The first such notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13-1-1959 in respect of 24,000 acres of land. Another notification under S.4 was issued on 24-10-1961 in respect of 16,000 acres of land. One such notification under S. 4 was issued on 23-1-1965. Declarations under S.6 of the Act were issued on 16-5-1966 and 13-1-1969. The declaration dated 16-5-1966 related to 2,153 Bighas of land, whereas the declaration dated 13-1-1969 was in respect of 88 Bighas. A declaration under S. 6 had been made on 6-12-1966 in respect of 5.898 bighas of land which is subject matter of controversy in other writ petitions.

(2.) According to the petitioners, having issued the declarations in respect of several thousand Bighas of lands, no further steps, for making of the award or payment of the compensation were taken for more than 14 years from the date of the declarations under S. 6 of the Act. The awards were made only in the years 1980, 1981 and 1983. This procedure was adopted only to peg the market value of the lands between the years 1959 and 1965. This has inflicted great injury to the petitioners, inasmuch as the compensation has been worked out with reference to the dates of notifications under S. 4 of the Act.

(3.) The power to acquire private property for public use is an attribute of sovereignty and is essential to the existence of a Government. The power of eminent domain was recognised on the principle that the sovereign State can always acquire the property of a citizen for public good, without the owners consent. Later, either in the Constitution or in the Act enacted for that purpose, not only this power was recognised, but limitations on exercise of such power were prescribed, for striking a balance between the interest of the public and the individual.