1996 (9) TMI 638 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of simultaneous publication of notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Legislative competence to amend the law and validate actions declared invalid by the court.
3. Arbitrary exercise of power in land acquisition.
4. Procedural infirmities in the acquisition process.

Summary:

1. Validity of Simultaneous Publication of Notification u/s 4(1) and Declaration u/s 6:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of simultaneous publication of notification u/s 4(1) and declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court had quashed the declaration u/s 6 based on the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, which required the declaration to be published after the notification. However, the State Legislature enacted the Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment and Validation) Act, 1991, which validated such simultaneous publications retrospectively. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this amendment, stating that the proviso to Section 17(4) introduced by the State Legislature was consistent with the legislative power and did not merely reiterate the defect pointed out by the Court.

2. Legislative Competence to Amend the Law and Validate Actions Declared Invalid by the Court:
The Court discussed the legislative competence to amend laws and validate actions previously declared invalid. It was emphasized that the Legislature cannot directly overrule a judicial decision but can amend the law to remove the defects pointed out by the Court. The U.P. Amendment Act 5 of 1991 was deemed valid as it was reserved for the President's consideration and received assent, thus prevailing over the Central Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court cited various precedents to support the principle that the Legislature can enact laws with retrospective effect to validate actions.

3. Arbitrary Exercise of Power in Land Acquisition:
The respondents contended that the exercise of power was arbitrary, highlighting that some lands were excluded from acquisition while others were acquired. The Supreme Court found no merit in this contention, noting that the lands left out were agricultural or abadi lands, which could be acquired under different provisions. The Court reiterated that acquisition for planned development of housing schemes is an urgent purpose, justifying the exercise of power u/s 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5-A.

4. Procedural Infirmities in the Acquisition Process:
The appellants argued that no developments had been undertaken and no plans prepared, rendering the acquisition invalid. The Court rejected this argument, stating that under the U.P. Urban Development Act, it is not mandatory to prepare the entire scheme before publishing the notification u/s 4(1). The Court upheld the validity of the notifications and declarations, emphasizing that the acquisition process was not vitiated by any manifest error of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the Meerut Development Authority, dismissed the appeals of the claimants-respondents, and upheld the validity of the U.P. Amendment Act 5 of 1991. The Court directed the Land Acquisition Officer to pass the awards within six months and dismissed the contempt petitions related to unauthorized constructions. The judgment reaffirmed the legislative competence to amend laws and validate actions retrospectively, provided the amendments address the defects pointed out by the Court.