2012 (1) TMI 271 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Government of NCT of Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensed with the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants for a public purpose, namely, establishment of electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited (for short, DTL ) at village Mandoli ? Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had rightly negatived the appellants challenge to the acquisition of their land?

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Dispensation with the rule of hearing under Section 5A(2) of the Act.
3. Justification of urgency in land acquisition.
4. Application of mind by the Lieutenant Governor.
5. Availability of alternative land.
6. Validity of the High Court's decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The primary issue was whether the Government of NCT of Delhi was justified in invoking Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire land for the establishment of an electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited (DTL). The appellants argued that there was no urgency warranting the invocation of these sections, which bypassed the rule of hearing under Section 5A(2).

2. Dispensation with the rule of hearing under Section 5A(2) of the Act:
The appellants contended that they were deprived of their right to be heard before their land was acquired. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule of audi alteram partem (right to be heard) is fundamental to a just decision. The Court noted that the Lieutenant Governor's approval did not demonstrate a conscious decision to dispense with the application of Section 5A.

3. Justification of urgency in land acquisition:
The respondents justified the urgency by citing the need for a sub-station to evacuate power from a 1500 MW gas-based power plant at Bawana, especially for the Commonwealth Games. However, the Supreme Court found a significant time gap of over five years between the initiation of the proposal and the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and (4). The Court held that the urgency provisions could only be invoked if there was a real emergency that could not brook even a few weeks or months of delay.

4. Application of mind by the Lieutenant Governor:
The appellants argued that the Lieutenant Governor had not applied his mind to the issue of urgency and had mechanically approved the proposal. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the documents did not indicate a conscious decision to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the Government on the issue of urgency must be based on relevant factors and records.

5. Availability of alternative land:
The appellants claimed that other parcels of land, including waste land belonging to public authorities and the Gaon Sabha, were available and could have been utilized for the sub-station. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents had not examined the feasibility of acquiring alternative land, which indicated arbitrariness in the decision-making process.

6. Validity of the High Court's decision:
The Division Bench of the High Court had rejected the appellants' challenge, stating that the urgency for the sub-station continued to exist even after the Commonwealth Games. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court had overlooked the significant time gap and the lack of material justifying the urgency. The Supreme Court emphasized that the urgency provisions could only be justified if there was a real emergency that could not brook delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the acquisition of the appellants' land. The Court clarified that the judgment would not preclude the competent authority from issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) and taking necessary steps for the acquisition. The appellants were given the right to file objections and be heard in the inquiry under Section 5A if fresh proceedings were initiated. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →