9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of urgency clause under Section 17(1) and dispensation of summary enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Justification for dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A. 3. Existence of structures and buildings on the land and the request for release of land from acquisition under Section 48. 4. Validity and legality of the acquisition notifications. Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation of Urgency Clause and Dispensation of Summary Enquiry: The appellants contended that the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) and the dispensation of the summary enquiry under Section 5A for the public purpose of developing a residential colony were unjustified. They argued that the development of a residential colony does not necessitate such urgency and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the extraordinary power exercised by the State. The State and Gorakhpur Development Authority (GDA) justified the urgency clause, citing the need for housing for various income groups and the substantial progress made in the development of the land. 2. Justification for Dispensing with Enquiry under Section 5A: The Court examined whether the impugned notifications invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A were legal and valid. It was noted that the power of eminent domain allows the State to acquire private property for public use, but this power must be exercised with caution, especially when it involves bypassing the enquiry under Section 5A, which confers a valuable right on the landowner. The Court cited several precedents emphasizing that the urgency must be of such a nature that it justifies eliminating the summary enquiry under Section 5A. The Court found that in the present case, the State failed to justify the urgency that warranted the elimination of the enquiry under Section 5A, as there was a significant delay between the initial proposal and the issuance of the notifications. 3. Existence of Structures and Buildings: The appellants argued that their land should be released from acquisition under Section 48 as they had constructed residential houses before the issuance of the notifications. The respondents countered that the structures were erected after the notification under Section 4(1). The Court noted that since the existence of structures on the land at the relevant time was disputed, it was not appropriate to issue a direction for the release of the land. However, the Court granted the appellants liberty to make a representation to the State authorities under Section 48(1) for the release of their land, which the State Government must consider in accordance with the law and State policy. 4. Validity and Legality of the Acquisition Notifications: The Court concluded that the dispensation of the enquiry under Section 5A was not justified and thus, the impugned notifications suffered from legal infirmity. However, considering that a significant portion of the landowners had accepted compensation and substantial development work had already been completed, the Court decided not to invalidate the acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that the exceptional power under Section 17 should not be routinely invoked and must be justified with clear and urgent necessity. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, but the appellants were given the liberty to make representations under Section 48(1) for the release of their land. The State Government was directed to consider such representations in accordance with the law and State policy within three months of receipt. No costs were awarded.
|
