9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the acquired land (waste or arable). 2. Urgency justifying the invocation of urgency clause. 3. Validity of acquisition of houses and structures on the land. Summary: Issue 1: Nature of the Acquired Land The primary contention was whether the land acquired was waste or arable, as there were pucca and kutchha houses, huts, and cattle sheds on it. The Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed the notification u/s 17(4) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, on the grounds that the land was not entirely waste or arable. The Supreme Court, however, referred to the decision in *State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi* and held that the existence of a few super-structures on a large extent of land does not prevent the government from exercising power u/s 17(4). The principle is that the nature of the land should be judged by its general condition, not by isolated structures. Issue 2: Urgency Justifying Invocation of Urgency Clause The respondents argued that there was no real urgency warranting the invocation of the urgency clause, and an inquiry u/s 5(A) should have been held. The Supreme Court found that there was material before the government to justify the urgency, such as an acute scarcity of land and a time-bound loan program for housing construction. The Court reiterated that the satisfaction u/s 17(4) is subjective and should not be interfered with if there is material to support it. Issue 3: Validity of Acquisition of Houses and Structures The respondents contended that the houses and other structures on the land should not have been acquired. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the principle enunciated in *State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi* applies, where a few structures on a large extent of land do not invalidate the acquisition. The Court also noted that the notification need not explicitly state that the land is waste or arable, as long as the government forms a reasonable opinion based on available material. Additional Points: - The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition by the New Pink Grih Nirman Sahkari Sangh, which questioned the same notifications. The Court held that there was no final decision to de-notify the lands and that possession had already been taken by the government, making withdrawal from acquisition u/s 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, impermissible. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, and upheld the notifications issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
|
