2011 (2) TMI 1601 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Legitimacy of the acquisition process and deprivation of the right to file objections under Section 5A.
3. Justification for the urgency clause in land acquisition.

Summary:

1. Validity of invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellants were aggrieved by the Calcutta High Court's order annulling the invoking of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act") by the State Government for acquiring premises No. 14 and 12/1, Hare Street, Calcutta. The High Court quashed the acquisition on the grounds that the urgency clause under Section 17(4) was improperly invoked, depriving the respondents of their right to file objections under Section 5A.

2. Legitimacy of the acquisition process and deprivation of the right to file objections under Section 5A:
The respondents challenged the notifications issued by the State Government under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, arguing that there was no valid ground for invoking Section 17(4), which resulted in depriving them of the right to file objections under Section 5A. The Division Bench of the High Court quashed the acquisition, emphasizing the importance of public enquiry and the rule of natural justice. The court noted that the government proceeded with a closed mind, paying attention only to the statutory phrases without genuine consideration of the facts.

3. Justification for the urgency clause in land acquisition:
The Supreme Court considered the applicability of Section 17 of the Act, referencing precedents such as Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra and Anand Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court highlighted that the urgency clause should not be invoked lightly and must be justified by exceptional circumstances. In this case, the Court found that the time gap between the quashing of the first notification and the issuance of the second notification was too long to justify invoking the urgency clause. The appellants failed to explain why they could not comply with the requirement of Section 5A, and the urgency clause was improperly invoked on the pretext of complying with the High Court's direction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision, stating that the High Court did not err in quashing the notifications issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Act. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.