2006 (8) TMI 663 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Legality of invoking Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A.
3. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the notification under Section 4.
4. Allegations of mala fide intentions and arbitrariness in the land acquisition process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notification Issued Under Section 4:
The petitioner challenged the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, asserting it was premature and not maintainable. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in *Collector Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal* and *Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana*, which held that a notification under Section 4 could be challenged independently if it was issued with legal mala fides or for non-existing purposes. The court concluded that the notification under Section 4 could be challenged if there were legal infirmities or mala fides. However, in this case, the notification was duly published in the Official Gazette and local newspapers, and there was no frontal attack on its validity. Thus, the court did not accept the challenge to the notification under Section 4.

2. Legality of Invoking Section 17(1) and 17(4) to Dispense with Inquiry Under Section 5A:
The petitioner argued that the invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A was arbitrary and lacked urgency. The court examined the scheme of the Act, emphasizing that the use of emergency powers under Section 17(4) should be based on real urgency and material on record. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including *Union of India v. Mukesh Hans* and *State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh*, which highlighted the importance of the right to file objections under Section 5A and the need for genuine urgency to dispense with it. The court found no material on record justifying the urgency claimed by the respondents and held that the invocation of Section 17(1) and 17(4) was not justified. Consequently, the notification under Section 17(1) and 17(4) was quashed.

3. Preliminary Objection Regarding Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petition challenging the notification under Section 4 was premature and not maintainable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Collector Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal*, which held that a writ petition challenging a notification under Section 4 could be entertained if there were legal infirmities or mala fides. The court concluded that the writ petition was maintainable in exceptional circumstances where the notification was per se illegal or tainted with mala fides. However, in this case, there was no legal discrepancy in issuing and publishing the notification under Section 4, so the preliminary objection was not upheld.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide Intentions and Arbitrariness:
The petitioner alleged that the land acquisition was arbitrary, discriminatory, and influenced by political pressure. The court examined the records and found no evidence supporting the claim of mala fide intentions or arbitrariness. The court noted that the notification clearly stated that the land was needed for the public purpose of plan development of a residential colony. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Bajirao T Kote and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.*, which held that the exercise of power under Section 4(1) for a public purpose could not be invalidated on grounds of mala fides if the public purpose was shown. The court concluded that the petitioner's allegations of mala fide intentions and arbitrariness were not substantiated and rejected the challenge on these grounds.

Conclusion:
The court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the notification under Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act while upholding the notification under Section 4. The respondents were permitted to proceed with the acquisition in accordance with the law, providing an opportunity for objections under Section 5A. The time during which the writ petitions were pending was excluded from the acquisition process timeline. The judgment also applied to several connected writ petitions challenging similar notifications and declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.