Holding

A notification under Section 17(4) that dispenses with Section SA is invalid unless it expressly states that the land is waste or arable and that there is an urgency for immediate possession.

Summary

The appellant challenged a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that directed the Governor to exercise power under Section 17(4) on the ground of urgency and to dispense with the provisions of Section 5A (Section SA). The Supreme Court examined whether the conditions for invoking Section 17(4) – namely that the land must be waste or arable and that there must be an urgency for immediate possession justifying denial of the owner's right to object under Section SA – were satisfied. The Court found that the notification made no mention of the land being waste or arable nor did it substantiate any urgency, rendering the exemption from Section SA legally incomplete. Consequently, the direction to the Collector to act under Section 17 on the basis of urgency was held invalid. The Court set aside the High Court order, allowed the writ petition, and struck down the portion of the notification that dispensed with Section SA.

Issues considered

Whether a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 directing action under Section 17(4) and dispensing with Section 5A (Section SA) is valid without specifying that the land is waste or arable and without demonstrating urgency.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(1), s. 17(2), s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5A

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 17(4)UrgencyWaste landArable landObjection rightValidity of notificationSupreme Court

Judgment

93

DERA PHALAULI
•
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS .
• July 24, 1979
-'
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Ss. 4, SA & 17(4)-0rder issued under S. 17(4)
dispensing with provisions vf S. 5A-Vafidity of-Direction to Co/icctor to take
action under S. 17 on g1ou11d of urgency-Not a legal and con1plete fulfiln1e11t
of the requirenient of the law.

Allowin.~ the appeaJ,

HELD: For n1aking the prov1s1ons of section 17(1) applicable: (a) the
lP.nd in respet t of \vhic!i. the urgency provision is being rtpplied should be waste
or arable fN1<l (b) there should be an urgency for taking irrimediate possession
requirin~ dispensation of the right of the owner for filing an obji::ction under
I)
section SA aqd this right should not be interfered in a ca:i;ual or cavalil!r
manner. [94C, F]

Jn the instant case the Notification under section 17(4) of the Act neither
--·1 mentioned that the land is wute or arable nor that there was urgency to take
recourse to the provisions of the Act. [94D]

The direction given to the Collector to take action under Section 17 on
E
the ground of urgency is not a legal and complete fulfilment of the requirement
of the law. [94E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1969.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29-8-1968 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2713/68.

N. N. Keswani for the Appellant.
• The Order of the Court was delivered by
•
UNTWALIA, J. In this appeal filed by certificate, several points have G
l;een urged by learned counsel for the appellant. We do not consider
it necessary either to state all the points or discuss them as none of
them except .one has got any substance. The point of substance which
i\1 our opinion must suco~ed in this appeal is as to whether even on the
face of the Notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), an Order under Sectiou 17 ( 4) II
dispensing with the compliance with the provisions of Section SA was
valiuly mad·~. The paragraph of the Notification which incorporated
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.
(
A apparently the order exercising the power under Sub-Section ( 4) of
Section 17 of the Act reads as follows : -
"Further in exercise of the powers under the said Act,
the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that action under
Section 17 shall be taken ill thls case on the grounds of •
l. •
B urgency and provisions of section SA will 'not apply iu regard
lo this acquisition."
It is to be clearly understood that under Sub-Section ( 4), the
appropriate Government may direct that the provision of Section SA
shall not apply where in the opinion of the State Government, the
provisions of Sub-Sectieh (1) or Sub-Section(2) are applicable, other-
c wise not. For making the provisions of Sub-Section (1) applicable,
two things must be satisfied that the land in respect of which the ur-
gency provision is being applied is waste or arable and secondly that
there is an urgency to proceed in the matter of ta1dng immediate
posses5ion and so the right of the owner of the land for filing an objec-
D tion nnder Section SA should not be made available to him. In the
portion of the Notification which we have extracted above, it is neither
mentioned that the land is waste or arable nor has it been stated that in
the opinion of the Government, there was any urgency to take
recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. A direction to
the Collector has been given to take action under Section 17 on the
E ground of urgency but this is not a legal and complete fulfilment of the
requirement of the law. It is to be remembered that the right of a
person having auy interest in the property to file an objection under
Section SA of the Act should not be interfered with in such a casual
or cavalier manner as has been done in this case.
. II For tke reasons •lated above, we allow this appeal set aside the
order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ Petition, allow
the writ Petition and strike down that portion of the Notificatipn issued
on 23-8-1967 under Section 4 of the Act which directed the exercise
of power under Section 17. The authorities if so advised m""'
'
proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity --
to the' appel- .. •
G Iunt of filing their objection under Section SJ\. ·
Since the other side has not appeared, there is no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal allowed.