9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether multiple declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be issued successively for different pieces of land within the same locality specified in a Section 4 notification. 2. Interpretation of Sections 4, 5A, and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. The impact of Section 17(4) on the issuance of multiple declarations under Section 6. 4. The relevance of Section 48 regarding the withdrawal from acquisition. 5. The application of Sections 49(2) and (3) in the context of multiple declarations under Section 6. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Multiple Declarations Under Section 6: The primary question was whether successive declarations under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be issued for different pieces of land within the same locality specified in a Section 4 notification. The court concluded that the Act contemplates only a single declaration under Section 6 for a notification under Section 4. The reasoning was that Sections 4, 5A, and 6 must be read together, and the Act's language does not support multiple declarations. The court emphasized that the Act should be interpreted to place the least burden on landowners, whose lands are being expropriated. 2. Interpretation of Sections 4, 5A, and 6: The court held that Sections 4, 5A, and 6 are integrally connected. Section 4 specifies the locality, Section 5A provides for objections and their resolution, and Section 6 involves the declaration of specific lands needed for public purposes. Once a declaration under Section 6 is made, the notification under Section 4 is considered exhausted. The court found no provision in these sections that supports the idea of Section 4 being a "reservoir" for successive declarations under Section 6. 3. Impact of Section 17(4): Section 17(4) allows the government to bypass Section 5A in cases of urgency and make a declaration under Section 6 immediately after a Section 4 notification. The court noted that while this might suggest the possibility of multiple declarations, it ultimately decided that Section 17(4) does not imply that multiple declarations under Section 6 are permissible. The court clarified that even if Section 17(4) allows for an urgent declaration, it does not change the fundamental requirement that a Section 4 notification can only support one Section 6 declaration. 4. Relevance of Section 48: Section 48 provides the government with the power to withdraw from acquisition before taking possession. The appellants argued that this implies a Section 4 notification remains in force until withdrawal. The court rejected this argument, stating that a Section 4 notification is exhausted once a Section 6 declaration is made for the entire area covered by it. The court emphasized that Section 48 is about withdrawal from acquisition and does not affect the exhaustion of a Section 4 notification. 5. Application of Sections 49(2) and (3): Sections 49(2) and (3) deal with claims for compensation due to severance of land. The appellants contended that these sections imply successive declarations under Section 6 are permissible. The court disagreed, stating that these provisions are special cases where the statute specifically allows for additional declarations. The court concluded that without such special provisions, the Act does not permit multiple declarations under Section 6. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that only one declaration under Section 6 can follow a Section 4 notification. The judgment emphasized a strict interpretation of the Act to minimize the burden on landowners and ensure fair compensation, while also allowing the government to issue new Section 4 notifications if additional land is needed. The court's decision aligns with the principles of eminent domain, balancing public interest with the rights of landowners.
|
