9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the notification u/s 4(1) should contain a declaration that the lands are waste or arable lands. 2. Whether the exercise of the power u/s 17(4) was vitiated by the finding that the lands were not capable of cultivation being situated in an urban area. 3. Whether the substance of the notification published u/s 4(1) was not published in the locality and its implications on the acquisition proceedings. Summary: Issue 1: Declaration of Land Nature in Notification u/s 4(1) The Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act does not require specifying the nature of the land, i.e., whether it is arable or waste land. The object of the publication is to notify that the land is needed for a public purpose, authorize state officers to enter the land, and inform the owner that any encumbrance post-notification will not bind the State. Thus, the High Court's view that the notification should contain a declaration of the land's nature was deemed erroneous. Issue 2: Exercise of Power u/s 17(4) The Court addressed whether the land in question was arable or waste. It was noted that the determination of whether land is arable is a mixed question of fact and law, dependent on the specifics of each case. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Ishwarlal Girdharilal Joshi vs. State of Gujarat and Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, to conclude that the land in question, despite being in an urban area, was capable of cultivation and thus considered arable. Therefore, the exercise of power u/s 17(4) by the Government was not bad in law. Issue 3: Publication of Notification Substance in Locality The Court acknowledged that compliance with the requirement of publishing the substance of the notification in the locality is mandatory. However, it emphasized that once possession of the land is taken and it vests in the State free from all encumbrances, there is no provision to divest the title validly vested in the State. The Court cited previous cases, including Sanjeevanagar Medical & Health Employees' Co-operative Society v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., to support the view that non-compliance with procedural requirements does not invalidate the acquisition once the land has vested in the State. The High Court's interference in quashing the notification and declaration was thus deemed unjustified. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition without costs. The acquisition proceedings, including the notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6, were upheld as valid.
|
