9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1092 - SC - Indian Lawsacquisition proceedings - right to development - challenging the notification u/s 4 and 6 - enquiry u/s 5A - challenge opposing the acquisition related to the concept of public purpose - It is mainly the complaint of the appellants that they had purchased the land long time back and their names were duly mutated in the Revenue records and they had thereafter raised constructions over the land in question, and in those constructions, they were running their business like shops, cold-storage etc. The appellants also complained that the area which was proposed to be cleared for the interchange, if acquired, the appellants would suffer immensely. The appellants very seriously challenged the application of urgency u/s 17(1) and 17(4) to these acquisitions, thereby depriving the appellants of an opportunity to be heard u/s 5A. HELD THAT - We are completely convinced that there was necessity in this Project considering the various reasons like enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project had lingered already from 2001 till 2008. The law on this subject was thoroughly discussed in Tika Ram and Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. etc 2009 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT , to which one of us (V.S. Sirpurkar) was a party. In that decision also, we had reiterated that the satisfaction required on the part of Executive in dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A is a matter subject to satisfaction and can be assailed only on the ground that there was no sufficient material to dispense with the enquiry or that the order suffered from malice. It was also found that there was no charge of malafide levelled against the exercise of power and there was material available in support of the satisfaction on the part of the Executive justifying the invocation of the provisions of Section 17. The position is no different in the present case. The High Court in the present matter went a step ahead and examined the bulky original record itself to find that there was full material available. In view of the law laid down in the judgment on this issue i.e. Tika Ram and Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2009 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT , we are of the clear opinion that the challenge by the appellants on the ground that there was no urgency and, therefore, the enquiry u/s 5-A should not have been dispensed with, cannot be accepted. We hold accordingly. There is no merit in the appeals. Hence, dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the acquisition of land for the Yamuna Expressway Project constitutes a public purpose. 2. Whether the application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5A was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Public Purpose of the Acquisition: Arguments by the Appellants: - The acquisition was alleged to be a colorable exercise of power, benefiting J.P. Infratech Ltd. (respondent No. 5) rather than serving a public purpose. - The project was claimed to be a pretext for developing feeder roads to connect five proposed townships, essentially benefiting the company. - The entire compensation was to be paid by the private company, suggesting the acquisition was for the company and not for public purpose. - The lease period of 90 years was argued to be virtually a perpetual lease, transferring proprietary rights to the company. Arguments by the Respondents: - The respondents contended that the project was for the public purpose, aiming at the development of infrastructure, which would benefit the general public. - The acquisition was transparent and necessary for the development of the Yamuna Expressway and the associated five townships. - The acquisition was not under Part VII of the Act since the land would revert to the government after the concession period, and the project was implemented on a Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) basis. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: - The Court noted that the project was conceived in 2001, long before the present company came into existence, negating the argument of a colorable exercise of power. - The project was cleared by a Commission of Enquiry and a Public Interest Litigation, establishing transparency and public purpose. - The project aimed to provide a fast-moving corridor, connect townships, and relieve congestion on NH-2, which were deemed public purposes. - The acquisition of land for the expressway and the development of five parcels were integral parts of an indivisible project, contributing to the industrial and economic development of the region. - The compensation arrangement, wherein the company paid the acquisition cost but did not gain proprietary rights, did not negate the public purpose. - The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the acquisition was for a public purpose, benefiting the general public and facilitating state development policies. 2. Application of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act: Arguments by the Appellants: - The appellants argued that there was no real urgency justifying the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4), which dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A, depriving them of a hearing. - They claimed that the urgency was artificially created, referring to the delay since the project's conception in 2001. Arguments by the Respondents: - The respondents argued that the project's scale and the potential for encroachments justified the urgency. - The delay in the project's implementation due to litigation and the rising costs necessitated the invocation of the urgency clause. - The High Court had examined the records and found sufficient material justifying the urgency. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: - The High Court meticulously examined the records and found material justifying the urgency, including the project's enormous scale, potential encroachments, and the significant delay already experienced. - The Court noted that the project involved acquiring land from a large number of farmers, and the enquiry under Section 5A would have caused further delays and increased costs. - The Court cited previous judgments, including Tika Ram and Ors. vs. State of U.P., affirming that the satisfaction of urgency by the Executive is subject to judicial review only on grounds of lack of material or malice. - The Court found no malafides or lack of material in the State Government's decision to invoke the urgency clause. - The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the urgency was justified and the dispensation of the enquiry under Section 5A was lawful. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the High Court's judgments that the land acquisition for the Yamuna Expressway Project was for a public purpose and that the invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act was justified. The Court emphasized the project's benefits to the public and the transparency in the acquisition process.
|
