9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Applicability of Urgency Provisions under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Compliance with Mandatory Requirements of the Act. 4. Vagueness of the "Public Purpose" in the Notification. 5. Non-Application of Mind by Authorities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act The Supreme Court examined whether the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was valid. The Court emphasized that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under Section 4, which is mandatory. The notification must be strictly construed as it aims to deprive a person of their property. The notification should provide sufficient clarity on the "public purpose" and the "locality" where the land is situated. In this case, the notification was found to be cryptic and lacking in detail, failing to specify the locality and the precise land details, thereby invalidating the notification. 2. Applicability of Urgency Provisions under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act The High Court had quashed the acquisition proceedings partly on the grounds that the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) could not be invoked as the land was not "waste or arable." The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue, given the other grounds on which the notification was found to be invalid. 3. Compliance with Mandatory Requirements of the Act The Supreme Court reiterated that any serious lapse in complying with the mandatory requirements of the Act, such as issuing a detailed notification under Section 4, would vitiate the proceedings. The notification must be published in the locality to inform affected persons and enable them to take further steps, such as filing objections. The lack of detailed particulars in the Section 4 notification, which were later provided in the Section 6 notification, was deemed insufficient and non-compliant with the Act's requirements. 4. Vagueness of the "Public Purpose" in the Notification The Court found the term "residential" used in the notification to be hopelessly vague, providing no clear idea about the purpose of acquisition. The notification failed to indicate what type of residential accommodation was proposed or for whom. The vagueness prevented affected persons from understanding the purpose of the acquisition and from taking any further steps. The Court cited previous judgments, such as Munshi Singh v. Union of India, to emphasize the need for clarity in stating the "public purpose" in the notification. 5. Non-Application of Mind by Authorities The Court noted discrepancies in the stated "public purpose" between the letter from the Executive Engineer and the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6. The letter mentioned "construction of buildings and shops under the self-financing scheme," whereas the notifications mentioned "residential" and "housing scheme of Housing Board." This inconsistency indicated a lack of application of mind by the authorities, further invalidating the notification. Conclusion The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the impugned notification was vitiated due to vagueness and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Act. The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, and the acquisition proceedings were quashed.
|
