1976 (10) TMI 146 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the urgency is of such a nature as to require elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The recital does not say at all that any opinion was formed on the need to dispense with the enquiry under section 5A of the Act. It is certainly a case in which the recital was at least defective. The burden, therefore, rested upon the State to remove the defect, if possible, by evidence to show that some exceptional circumstances which necessitated the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A of the Act and that the mind of the Commissioner was applied to this essential question. It seems to us that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act to place the burden upon the State to prove those special circumstances although it also; appears to us. that the High Court was not quite correct in stating its view in such a manner as to make it appear that some part of the initial burden of the petitioners under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act had been displaced by the failure of the State, to discharge its duty under section 106 of the Act. The correct way of putting it would have been to say that the failure of the State to produce the evidence of facts especially within the knowledge of its officials, which rested upon it under section 106 of the Evidence Act, taken together with the attendant facts gnu circumstances, including the contents of recitals, had enabled the petitioners to discharge their burdens under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Validity of declarations under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Burden of proof regarding the existence of urgency for invoking Section 17(4).
4. Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in determining the burden of proof.
5. Presumption of regularity in official acts and its rebuttal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act for all groups of lands involved. The Court agreed with the High Court's view that the notifications were legally valid, stating, "In agreement with the High Court, we hold that notification under section 4(1) of the Act were valid in all these cases."

2. Validity of Declarations under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

The primary issue was whether the Government of Maharashtra had adequately demonstrated the urgency required to invoke Section 17(4) of the Act, thereby dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. The High Court had quashed the declarations under Section 17(4), finding that the government had not shown sufficient urgency. The Supreme Court noted, "The Government of Maharashtra had not discharged its burden of showing facts constituting the urgency which impelled it to give declarations cum-directions under section 17(4) of the Act."

3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Existence of Urgency for Invoking Section 17(4):

The Court discussed the burden of proof extensively. It emphasized that the petitioner must substantiate the grounds of their challenge. However, the State also has a duty to provide evidence of urgency when invoking Section 17(4). The Court stated, "If, in addition to the bare assertions made by the petitioners, that the urgency contemplated by section 17(4) did not exist, there were other facts and circumstances, including the failure of the State to indicate facts and circumstances which it could have easily disclosed if they existed, the petitioners could be held to have discharged their general onus."

4. Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Determining the Burden of Proof:

The Court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to these cases, which places the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of the official who formed the opinion on the State. The Court held, "We think that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act to place the burden upon the State to prove those special circumstances."

5. Presumption of Regularity in Official Acts and Its Rebuttal:

The Court discussed the presumption of regularity attached to official acts under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. It noted that this presumption could be displaced by circumstances indicating that the power was not exercised in accordance with the law. The Court stated, "An order or notification, containing a recital, technically correct on the face of it, raises a presumption of fact under section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act." However, it also noted that this presumption is rebuttable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed all nine appeals, agreeing with the High Court that the State had failed to demonstrate the required urgency for invoking Section 17(4). The Court emphasized that the State should have provided more concrete evidence to justify the elimination of the Section 5A inquiry. The Court concluded, "On the view we take of the cases before us, we find no force in either the appeals by the owners of land or in those preferred by the State of Maharashtra. Consequently, we dismiss all the nine appeals before us."

Appeals dismissed.

← Previous Next →