2008 (3) TMI 789 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Right to be heard under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Judicial review of government decisions regarding land acquisition.
4. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Invoking Urgency Provisions under Section 17(1) and (4):

The appeals challenge the invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring additional land for the Inpun rehabilitation site. The appellants argued that the State Government's decision to bypass the Section 5A inquiry was arbitrary and lacked application of mind. The court examined the Collector's proposal and the Commissioner's order, which highlighted the urgency due to the Onkareshwar Project's time-bound nature. The court noted that the project's public purpose justified the invocation of urgency provisions, as the rehabilitation of displaced villagers was imperative before submergence due to the dam. The court found clear application of mind by the authorities in invoking Section 17(1) and (4), thereby meeting the requirements set by the Supreme Court in related precedents.

2. Right to be Heard under Section 5A:

The appellants contended that the right to be heard under Section 5A is a valuable right akin to a fundamental right, and its dispensation should not occur without proper justification. They cited various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing this right. However, the court observed that the urgency of the project and the need to expedite land acquisition justified the dispensation of the Section 5A inquiry. The court found that objections from landowners could delay the urgent rehabilitation process, and thus, the decision to invoke Section 17(4) was not arbitrary or mechanical but based on a well-considered assessment of the situation.

3. Judicial Review of Government Decisions:

The appellants argued that the court should scrutinize the government's satisfaction regarding urgency and the decision to dispense with the Section 5A inquiry. The court, however, reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that the question of urgency is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the government. Judicial review is limited to examining whether the government applied its mind to relevant factors and whether the decision was made in good faith. The court found no evidence of non-application of mind or malafide intent in the government's decision, thus upholding the dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Single Judge.

4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Violation of Fundamental Rights:

The appellants claimed that the acquisition was unreasonable and arbitrary, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They argued that government lands were available for rehabilitation, and the preference for Inpun by displaced villagers should not dictate land acquisition. The court held that these considerations are within the government's discretion, provided the acquisition serves a public purpose. The court emphasized that once the government applies its mind to the necessity of invoking urgency provisions and acts without malafide intent, the court should not interfere. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeals, dismissed them, and vacated the interim orders of status quo.