2002 (5) TMI 868 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court in issuing a writ of mandamus in a criminal writ petition.
2. Validity of the notification issued u/s 4(1) and u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Application of mind by the acquiring authority.
4. Invocation of urgency provisions u/s 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court in issuing a writ of mandamus in a criminal writ petition:
The Court examined whether it acted without jurisdiction in passing the order dated 24th October 2000 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 604/00. The Court noted that the order was passed without the presence of the petitioner's counsel and lacked sufficient reasoning. It was observed that the petitioners were not parties to the said criminal writ petition, and there was no nexus between the prayers made in the writ petition and the interim order passed. The Court emphasized that a Public Interest Litigation should be confined to the prayers made and its scope should not be unduly enlarged unless there exist cogent and sufficient reasons. The Court concluded that the order dated 24th October 2000 was not binding upon the petitioners as it was passed without jurisdiction and thus, is a nullity.

2. Validity of the notification issued u/s 4(1) and u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Court scrutinized the notifications issued on 29th November 2000 and 11th December 2000 under Sections 4, 6, and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It was found that the notifications were issued primarily due to the Court's order without independent application of mind by the acquiring authority. The Court highlighted that the requisition of the DDA was pending for 1 bigha 19 biswas, but the notification was issued for only 307 sq. yds. without any clear reasoning or independent satisfaction.

3. Application of mind by the acquiring authority:
The Court observed that the records did not show any independent application of mind by the acquiring authority. The impugned notification was issued because of the Court's order, and no independent satisfaction was arrived at by the authorities. The Court emphasized that the acquiring authority must independently assess the necessity of the land acquisition and not merely act on the Court's direction.

4. Invocation of urgency provisions u/s 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The Court examined whether the urgency provisions u/s 17(1) and 17(4) were rightly invoked. It was argued that there was no change in circumstances from 1986 to the date of the impugned notification except for the Court's order. The Court concluded that there was no sufficient and cogent reason to invoke the urgency clause, especially when the authorities could have waited for a period of thirty days more. The Court cited precedents to support the view that the emergency clause should not be invoked without substantial justification.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the impugned notifications. It held that the notifications were issued without independent application of mind and were primarily based on the Court's order, which was passed without jurisdiction. The Court directed that the appropriate authority could take appropriate steps in accordance with the law after applying its own independent mind. The petitions were allowed with costs.