9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at this Inpun rehabilitation site because amenities like Primary, Middle and High Schools, Panchayat Bhawan etc. were available in this rehabilitation site. The Task Force therefore recommended acquisition of 31.70 hectares of additional land for extension of the Inpun rehabilitation site. On the basis of the recommendation of the Task Force, the Executive Engineer, Narmada Development Division No. 32, Badwah recommended for immediate acquisition of additional land in his proposal dated 29-10-2007. Thereafter, 17.52 hectares of land were acquired by notification dated 7-11-2007 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in Revenue Case No. 30/A-82/06-07 but the remaining additional land could not be acquired because of objections of the land owners before issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector, East Nimar, Khandwa District in his letter dated 7-11-2007 sent a proposal to the Commissioner, Indore Division, M.P. for immediate acquisition of 11.04 hectares of land and the properties standing thereon and for permission for acquisition under Section 17(1) of the Act and for a separate permission to dispense wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht to be heard in an inquiry under Section 5A of the Act is a valuable right of a land owner and this valuable right cannot be dispensed with arbitrarily and without application of mind by the Government under Section 17(4) of the Act to the question whether it is necessary in a particular case of acquisition of land to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. In support of this contention, he relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Nandeshwar Prasad and Ors. v. U.P. Government and Ors. [1964]3SCR425 , Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of U.P. and Ors. [1967]1SCR373 , Ishwarlal Girdharlal Joshi v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [1968]2SCR267 , Narayan Govind Gavale and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [1977]1SCR763 , Om Prakash and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.[1998]3SCR643 , Union of India and Ors. v. Mukesh Hans AIR2004SC4307 , Union of India and Ors. v. Krishan Lal Arneja and Ors. AIR2004SC3582 , Union of India and Ors. v. Deepak Bhardwaj and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3289. He further submitted that in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Ors. AIR2005SC3520 , the Supreme Court has held that the right to make objections under Section 5A of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Article 226 of the Constitution should interfere with the decision of the Government to acquire the additional land by dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act. He submitted that the learned Single Judge was therefore right in dismissing the writ petitions by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash (supra). 4. Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act are quoted herein below: 17. (1) In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9, Sub-section (1), take possession of any land needed for public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. (2) *** *** *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** *** *** (4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply, and, if it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y dispensing with the valuable right of the owners under Section 5A of the Act. 7. Regarding the scope of judicial review in respect of orders under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act, the Supreme Court observed in First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and Ors. (supra): The question of urgency of an acquisition under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. In this view of the matter when the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant considerations into account and is satisfied that there exists emergency for invoking powers under Sections 17 (1) and (4) of the Act, and issues notification accordingly, the same should not be interfered with by the Court unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the Appropriate Authority had not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken by the Appropriate Authority malafide. 8. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we may now examine the facts of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (5) Therefore, it is requested that permission for application of Section 17(1) may be granted for early acquisition of agriculture land and the properties thereupon as mentioned in Para 3. (6) It is also requested that a separate permission may be granted under Section 17(4) so that without following the provisions of Section 5A, the declaration under Section 6 may be issued immediately after the issuance of notification under Section 4(1). (7) As per above, it is requested that separate permission may be granted for 17 (1), 17 (4) as in aforesaid Paras (5) and (6). Encl. Land Acquisition Proposals, Village Inpun, (Agriculture Land) enclosed table. Sd/7-11-07 S.B. Singh, Collector, East Nimar, Khandwa (M.P.) Office of the Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore No. 1599/5/Court/07, Indore, dated 15-11-2007. To, The Collector, District Khandwa (M.P.). Subject: For permission to exercise urgency clause under Section 17 in the Land Acquisition cases of Village Inpun, Tehsil Khandwa, District Khandwa. Ref. : Your Letter No. 13990/Land Acquisition/07, dated 7-11-2007. As per the aforesaid subject, kindly peruse the letter under reference. (2) By t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17(1) of the Act and for this reason, the Collector had made-request in the proposal for permission for application of Section 17(1) of the Act for early acquisition of the agricultural land and the properties situated thereon. 10. It further appears from the proposal contained in the letter dated 7-11-2007 of the Collector that permission was requested not only for application of Section 17(1) of the Act but also under Section 17(4) of the Act so that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act were dispensed with and the declaration under Section 6 could be issued immediately after issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The reason for invocation of the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act given in Paragraph 7 of the reply filed by the respondents in W.A. No. 129 of 2008 is that before acquisition of the said land, certain objections and complaints were submitted by the land owners to the respondents on 27-4-2007 before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7-11-2007 and hence the acquisition of the land for the urgent purpose of rehabilitating the villagers at the Inpun rehabilitation site would be delayed. Mr. Shrivastava argued that this cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should not acquire land only because oustees preferred lands in the Inpun rehabilitation site are matters of the subjective satisfaction of the Government. So long as the acquisition of land is for a public purpose and the urgency for the acquisition of land for public purpose was such as to require not only invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(1) but also dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A in exercise of the powers under Section 17(4) of the Act, the Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Government to acquire the land urgently by exercising its powers under Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. As has been held by the Supreme Court in First Land Acquisition Collector v. Nirodhi Prakash Ganguli and Ors. (supra), once the Court finds that the Government has applied its mind to need for invoking both Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act and there is no malafide in such a decision of the Government, the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with such a decision of the Government. We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals and we accordingly dismiss the same and vacate the interim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
