9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of land acquisition proceedings in the District of Rampur. 2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Adequacy of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 4. Requirement of specifying the locality in the notification. 5. Effect of defects in the notification under Section 4(1) on the legality of subsequent proceedings. 6. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 17 in cases of urgency. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard two appeals arising from land acquisition proceedings in Rampur. The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, declaring the need for land for a public purpose and directing the acquisition process. The petitioners challenged the validity of the notifications, alleging non-compliance with mandatory provisions. The High Court dismissed their complaints, emphasizing the preliminary nature of the Section 4 notification for investigation purposes. The Division Bench rejected the objections raised by the petitioners, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court. The primary contention before the Supreme Court was the validity of the Section 4 notification. The Court highlighted the procedural requirements under Section 4(1) regarding publication and public notice, emphasizing that this notification is a prerequisite for further acquisition proceedings. The Court noted that even in urgent cases under Section 17, compliance with Section 4(1) is essential. The absence of specific locality details in the notifications was deemed a serious defect, as it hindered affected parties from identifying the lands in question without visiting the Collector's office. The Court rejected the argument that subsequent notifications under Section 6 cured the defects in the initial Section 4 notification. Emphasizing strict construction of notifications affecting property rights, the Court held that the defects in the Section 4 notification could not be rectified by subsequent notifications. The Court referenced previous judgments to underscore the significance of complying with the procedural requirements of Section 4(1) before initiating acquisition proceedings. The Court also highlighted the legislative intent behind the provisions of Section 17, indicating that even in urgent situations, compliance with Section 4(1) remains necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court concluded that the defective Section 4 notification rendered the subsequent proceedings illegal, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements in land acquisition matters.
|
