Mohd.
Ali & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [1996] INSC 1191 (23 September 1996)
M.K.
Mukherjee, Faizan Uddin
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
These
appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court made on May 20, 1976 in
W.P. Nos. 792/75 and 5032/75 and batch. The appellant challenged, along with
yet other batch, the validity of the notification published under Section 4(1)
on October 12, 1974 and declaration under Section 6
dated September 28,
1974 contending that
the declaration under Section 6 could not be made until the notification under
Section 4(1) was published in accordance with law.
Therefore,
the notification is bad in law. The High Court noted, as a fact, that the
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 were
simultaneously published on October 12, 1974.
There is no bar no the Government making the order that before publication of
Section 4(1) declaration under Section 6 should also be published. It is not in
dispute that the State had in exercise of its power of eminent domain under
Section 17 [4] of the Act, dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A. It is
settled law that simultaneous publication of the notification under Section
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 was valid in law prior to the coming
into force of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is also seen that in relation to
the State of Uttar Pradesh, Land Acquisition [Amendment] Act 5 of 1991 has been
brought into force w.e.f. February 17, 1991 and, therefore, in relation to the
State of U.P. it is now settled law that when the State exercises the power of
eminent domain and in exercise of the power under Section 17(4) dispensing with
the enquiry under Section 5-A to acquire the land under Section 4(1) the State
is entitled to have the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration
under Section 6 simultaneously published so as to take further steps as
required under Section 9 of the Act, i.e., issuance of the notice and taking
possession thereof under Section 17(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the land stands
vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
In
view of the urgency, the Government exercised power of eminent domain and
dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A; we do not find any illegality in
the action taken by the respondents in having the notification under Section
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 simultaneously published. It is then
sought to be contended that the appellant has a small extent of the land and
other lands have been excluded from acquisition and, therefore, it is arbitrary
exercise of power. He also seeks to contend the procedural infirmities, but
unfortunately none of the contentions have been pressed before the High Court,
though might have been raised in writ petition. Under those circumstances, we
cannot permit the appellants to argue these points afresh which are purely
questions of fact to be verified on the basis of the material as the State had
no opportunity to deal with them.
The
appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. The
Land Acquisition Officer is directed to pass the awards within a period of six
months from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.
Back
Pages: 1 2