A P SAREEN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) Leave granted.

(3.) This appeal arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, made on December 9, 1996 in CMWP No. 23997 of 1996. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published on July 27, 1995, and the Government had in exercise of the power under Section 17(1) of the Act dispensed with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, Shri P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that since declaration was not published immediately, the exercise of power under Section 17(1) dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A, is bad in law as it indicates that there was no real urgency. The view of the High Court that possession of land is deemed to have been taken under Section 17(4) is not correct on the facts on this case. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad, (1996) 2 SCC 365 , has no application to the facts of this case. Though we are in agreement with the learned counsel in this behalf, we do not find substance in the other contentions. As regards the delay in issuing the said declaration we find that the authorities appear to have mis-construed the steps to be taken under the Act, It is well-settled legal position that urgency can be said to exist when land proposed to be acquired is need for planned development of the city/town etc. In Shri Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India, JT 1996 (10) SC 311, this Court considered the scope of exercise of the power by the Government under Section 17(1) of the Act and the procedure to be followed in that behalf. When the Government forms an opinion that the lands are urgently needed for a public purpose, notification under Section 4(1) could be issued and published in the Gazette while dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A. Giving a gap of one day, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act could be published in the Gazette. Notice under Section (1) should be given and on the expiry of 15 days thereafter, possession could be taken. The land stands vested in the State under Section 17(2) read with Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Since inquiry under Section 5-A has been dispensed with, as provided under the Act, 80% of the compensation was required to be given to the claimants. In this case, instead of adopting the said procedure, after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), they published the notification in the local news papers in English as well as Hindi and also substance thereof in the locality and thereafter personal notices appear to have been issued to the owners of the lands. After completion of this process, proceedings were put up before the Government for publication of the declaration under Section 6 which came to be made on April 18, 1996. The appellant filed the writ petition on July 19, 1996 and consequently possession could not be taken. After the writ petition was disposed of, possession was taken on December 10, 1996. In this backdrop, the need of urgent possession was dissipated by beaurocratic inavertence and the urgency did not cease. Urgency continues as long as the scheme is not initiated, action taken and process completed.