MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC.versusSATBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

           MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC.                                       A
                           v.
               SATBIR SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 1996
                                                                                   B
 [K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

      Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

       Sections 4(1), 6, 17(4'r-Simultaneous publication of the declaration
under S. 6 along with publication of notification under .s. 4(1'r-Validity         C
of-Judicial decision holding it invalid-Amending Act-Cannot simply seek
to take away the effect of the judgment-In that case it would amount to
legislative repeal of the judicial decision-Held, S. 2 of the U.P. Amendment
Act 5 of 1991 would operate prospectively and retrospectively from April 24,
1984 applying to the previous notifications and declarations but also to           D
notifications and declarations to be published subsequently-Retrospective
effect given from date of issuance of ordinance to the Act and operation
retrospectively from the date of judgment-No inconsistency in operation of
the Act or invalidity in giving two dates for the retrospective operation of the
provisions of the Act-Acquisition for housing development is an urgent
purpose and exercise of the power under S. 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry       E
under S. SA is not invalid-Exercise of power under S. 4(1) and declaration
under S. 6 are not vitiated by any manifest e"or of law wa"anting to quash
the declaration under S. 6 as was done by the High Court~onstructions
made despite status quo order passed by Supreme Court-Such constructions
will not bind the authority-No compensation for these illegal construe-            F
tions---Land Acquisition Officer to take note of these at the time of passing
the Award-Award to be passed within six months.

      Smt. Somawanti & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (19631 2 SCR 775;
Ghaziabad Development Authority v.Jai Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad           G
& Anr., [1996) 2 SCC 365; Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of Kera/ &
Ors., JT (1996) 2 SC 85; State of Orissa v. Gopal Chandranath, [1995) 6
SCC 243; Bhubaneswar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994) 6 SCC
77; Comorin Match Industries P. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1996) 4 SCC
281; Gouri Shankar Gauri & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1994) 1 SCC 92;
Government ofAndhra Pradesh v. HM. T., [1975) Supp. SCR 384;Aflatoon               H
                                      529
    530                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975) 4 SCC 285; Smt. Pista Devi v. M.DA.,
    [1986) 4 SCC 251 and State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, [1996) 7 SCC
    450, relied on.

         State of U.P. & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam & Ors., [1989) 1 SCR
    92; Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India, [1978) 2 SCC 50; State of U.P.
B   & Anr. v. Keshwav Prasad Singh, [1995) 5 SCC 587 and State of Haryana v.
    The Kamal Co-operative Fanners' Society Ltd., JT (1993) 2 SC 235, referred
    to.

         CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
C   No. 1828 of 1988 Etc. Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.1.88 of the Allahabad High
    Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10551 of 1985.

          Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, M.N. Krishnamani, Anis Suhrawardy, Mrs. S.
D Janani, V.J. Francis, R.D. Upadhyay, R. Bana, Ms. LaXIni Arvind, Subodh
    Markandeya, Ms. Chitra Markandeya M.M. Chopra, Ms. Meenakshi Agar-
    wal, (Anip Sachthey, P.D. Sharma, R.B. Misra, A.S. Pundir), (NP),
    Pradeep Misra, T. Mahipal, (RC. Verma) for, Ashok K. Srivastava for the
    appearing parties.

E         The following Orders of the Court was delivered :

          Substitution allowed.

          Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

F          Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
    (for short, the "Act") was published on June 11, 1985. The Government also
    exercised the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the
    enquiry under Section 5-A and had the declaration under Section 6 pub-
    lished on June 13, 1985. The publication of substance of the notification in
    the local newspapers came to be made on July 25, 1985. In August 1985,
G   the respondents filed a batch of writ petitions in the High Court impugning
    the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and of the declaration
    under Section 6 on six grounds. Five of the grounds raised by the respon-
    dents were negatived by the High Court as not sustainable but declaration
    under Section 6 was quashed on the ground that after the Amendment Act
H   68 of 1984 had come into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984, the simultaneous
                MEERUT AUTHORITYv. SATBIRSINGH                           531

publication of the declaration under Section 6 along with publication of A
notification under Section 4(1) was invalid in law. They relied upon judg-
ment of this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam & Ors.
etc., (1989) 1 SCR 92. The respondents filed cross appeals against the
findings that were negatived by the High Court in respect of all the other
five points. Thus these appeals by special leave.
                                                                                B
      Pending appeals, the Governor exercising the power under Article
213 of the Constitution issued the Ordinance No. 32 of 1990 and State
Legislature enacted the Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment and Valida-
tion) Act, 1991 (UP Act 5 1991) which came into force from December
28, 1990, introducing proviso to Section 17(4) of the Act and also by C
Section 3 thereof validated all the notifications and declarations issued
under the Act prior to the date of the judgment of this Court in Radhey
Shyam Nigam case (supra). The Ordinance came to be challenged by way
of Writ Petition No. 153/96. Thus all the matters tagged are disposed of
together. With a view to satisfactorily resolve the controversy, it is, at the D
first instance, necessary to dispose of the writ petition.

       It is seen that this Court in Radhey Shyam Nigam's case had con-
sidered the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act and
the Act. In exercise of power under Section 17(4) of the Act, the ap-
propriate State Government was empowered to issue and get published the         E
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act simulatensouly. That was upheld by this Court in Smt. Somawanti &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [1963) 2 SCR 775. After the Amendment
Act 68 of 1984 was brought on statute, sub-section (4) of Section 17
envisages that the authority is empowered to have the declaration under         F
Section 6 published after the publication of the notification under Section
4(1). In other words, the simultaneous exercise of power to get tqe notifica-
tion under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 was not valid in
law. This Court had held thus :

             "It is true that the expression "after the date of the publication G
         of the notification" introduced in Section 17(4) can be explained.....
         changes in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act".

      It is to be seen that the State Legislature thereafter, has enacted
proviso to sub-section (4) as under :                                     H
    532                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A              "Provided that where in the case of any land, notification under
            Section 4, sub-section (1) has been published in the official Gazette·
            on or after September 24, 1984 but before January 11, 1989, and
            the appropriate Government has under this sub-section directed
            that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, a declaration
            under Section 6 in respect of the land may be made either simul-
B           taneously with, or af any time after, the publication in the official
            Gazette of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1)."

          This proviso was inserte~ by Section 2 of the State Amendment Act
    5 of 1991. Sub-section (3) validated the acquisitions pending as on the date
C of the judgment of this Court which reads as under :

                 "3. Validation of certain acquisitions. - Notwithstandine any
             judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other
              authority, no acquisition of land made, or purporting to have been
              made, under the Principal Act before the commencement of this
D            Act and no action taken or thing done (including any order or
            -declaration made, agreement entered into or notification publish-
              ed) in connection with such acquisition, which is in conformity with
              the provisions of the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall
              be deemed to be invalid or ever to have been invalid merely on
E             the ground that declaration under Section 6 of the Principal Act·
              was published in the Official Gazette on the same· date on which
            . notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) of the Principal ;\ct,
              was published in Official Gazette or on any other date prior to the
                           •
              date of publication of such notification as defined in Section 4,
              sub-section (1) of the Principal Act."
F
          The controversy is not longer res integra. This Court in Ghaziabad
    Development Authority v. Jai Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri, Ghaziabad & Anr.,
    [1996) 2 sec 365 has considered the effect of the proviso introduced by
    the State Legislature by way of amendment to Section 17(4). Th.e validity
G has been upheld by the two-Judge Bench of this Court.
           Shri Pradeep Misra, learned counsel for the respondents, contended
    that if the law is declared by this Court that simultaneous publication under
    Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act is invalid, the
    Legislature has no power to over-rule and nullify the judgment of this
H   Court by way of amendment. It has only to remove the defect, as p~inted
                MEERUT AUIBORITY v. SATBIR SINGH                       533

out by this Court, by suitably amending the statute. In this case, a reading A
of the proviso would indicate that the State Legislature, without removing
the defect, as pointed out by this Court, reiterated the defect and sought
to validate all the invalid notifications or declarations as declared by this
Court in Radhey Slzyam Nigam's case (supra) as valid. Therefore, the U.P.
Amendment Act 5 of 1991 is invalid in law.
                                                                              B
      It is well-settled by catena of decisions of this Court that when this
Court in exercise of power of judicial review, has declared a particulate
statute to be invalid, the Legislature has no power to over-rule the judg-
ment; however, it has the power to suitably amend the law by use of
appropriate phraseology removing the defects pointed out by the court and C
by amending the law inconsistent with the law declared by the court so that
the defects which were pointed out were never on statute for effective
enforcement of the law. This Court has considered in extenso the case law
in a recent judgment in Indian Aluminium Co. & Ors. v. State of Kerala &
Ors., JT (1996) 2 SC 85 had held that such an exercise of .power to amend
a statute is not an incursion on the judicial power of the court but is a D
statutory exercise of the constituent power to suitably amend the law to
validate the actions which have been declared to be invalid. It laid down
the following principles :

        "(1) The adjudication of the rights of the parties is the esential    E
        judicial function. Legislature has to lay down the norms of conduct
        or rules which will govern the parties and the transactions and
        require the court to give effect to them;

        (2) The Constitution delineated delicate balance in the exercise of
        the sovereign power by the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary;      F

        (3) In a democracy governed by rule of law, the legislature exer-
        cises the power under Articles 245 and 246 and other companion
        Articles read with the entries in the respective lists in the Seventh
        Schedule to make the law which includes power to amend the law; G

        (4) Courts in their concern and endeavour to preserve judicial
        power equality must be guarded to maintain the delicate balance
        devised by the Constitution between the three sovereign
        functionaries. In order that rule of law permeates ta. fulfil an
        egalitarian social order, the respective sovereign functionaries H
    534                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         need free-play in their joints so that the march of social progress
          and order remain unimpeded. The smooth balance built with
          delicacy must always be maintained;

          (5) In its anxiety to safeguard judicial power, it is unnecessary to
          be overjealous and conjure up incusion into the judicial preserve
B         invalidating the valid law competently made;                             !
                                                                                   \

          (6) The Court, there fore, need to carefully scan the law to find
          out; (a) whether the vice pointed out by the Court and invalidity
          suffered by previous law is cured complying with the legal and
c         constitutional requirements; (b) whether the Legislature has com-
          petence to validate the law; (c) whether such validation is consis-
          tent with the rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution;

          (7) The Court does not have the power to validate an invalid law
D         or to legalise or to remove the norm of invalidation or provide a
          remedy. These are not judicial functions but the exclusive province
          of the Legislature. Therefore, they are not the encroachment on
          judicial power.

          (8) In exercising legislative power, the Legislature by mere decla-
E         ration, without anything more, cannot directly overrule, revise or
          override a judicial decision. It can render judicial decision ineffec-
          tive by enacting valid law on the topic within its legislative field
          fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively.
          The changed or altered conditions are such that the previous
F         decision would not have been rendered by the Court if those
          conditions had existed at the time of declaring the law as invalid.
          It is also empowered to give effect to retrospective legislation with
          a deeming date or with effect from a particular date. The Legis-
          lature can change the character of the tax or duty from inpermis-
          sible to permissible tax but the tax or levy should answer such
G         character and the Legislature is competent to recover the invalid ·
          tax validating such a tax or removing the invalid base for recovery
          from the subject or render the recovery from the State ineffectual.
          It is competent for the legislature to enact the law with retrospec-
          tive effect and authorise its agencies to levy and collect the tax on
H          that basis, make the imposition of levy collected and recovery of
                MEERUT AU1HORI1Yv. SATBIRSINGH                           535

        the tax made valid, notwithstanding the declaration by the Court A
        or the direction given for recovery thereof.

        (9) The consistent thread that runs through all the decisions of this
        Court is that the legislature cannot directly overrule the decision
        or make a direction as not binding on it but has power to make
        the decision ineffective by removing the base on which the decision     B
        was rendered, consistent with the law of the Constitution and the
        legislature must have competence to do the same."

      The same view as reiterated in State of Orissa v. Gopal Chandrarath,
f1995] 6 SCC 243; Bhubaneswar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., C
[1994] 6 SCC 77 and• Comorin Match Industries P. Ltd. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, [1996) 4 SCC 281. It is equally settled law that validating Act cannot
simply seek to take way the effect of the Judgment of the Court. In such
an event, it will be legislative repeal of judicial decision as had been held
by this Court in Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union Of India, [1978} 2 SCC 50;         D
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Keshwav Prasad Singh, [1995} 5 SCC 587 and State
of Haryana v. The Kamal Co-operative Fanners' Society Ltd., JT_(1993) 2
SC 235.

       The question in this case is : whether the Legislature has merely
reiterated the defect pointed out by this Court and thereby caused legisla- E
tive repeal of the judicial decision or it has cured the defect pointed out
by this Court so as to be in conformity with the law? In this behalf, it must"
be remembered on the facts in this case that acquisition is a concurrent
subject vide Entry 42 in the List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution on which both the Parliament as well as the State legislature F
have competence to enact the law suitable to the situtation prevailing in
the appropriate State. Article ,254 of the Constitution deals with such an
area. Clause (2) of Article 254 envisages that "Where a law made by the
Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an G
earlier law made by parliament, or an existing law with respect to that
matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it
has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received
his assent, prevail in that State". The scope thereof was elaborately con-
sidered by this Court in Gouri Shakar Gauri & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
[1994] 1 sec 92 at 117-118 and it was held thus:                               H
     536                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           "... (1) where the provisions of a Central Act and a State Act in
            the Concurrent Lir.t are fully inconsistent and are absolutely brecon-
            ciliable, the Centnl Act will prevail and the State Act will become
            void in view of the repugnancy; (2) where, however, a law passed
            by the State comes into collision with a law passed by Parliament
            on an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State Act shall prevail to
B
            the extent of the repugnancy and the provisions of the Central Act
            would become void provided the State Act has been passed in
            accordance with clause (2) Article 254; (3) where, however, a law
            made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Con-
            current List is inconsistent with or repugnant to a previous law
c           made by parliament, then such a law can be protected by obtaining
            the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitu-
            tion. The result of obtaining the assent of the President would be
            that so far as the State Act is concerned, it will prevail in the State
            and overrule the provisions of the Central Act in their applicability
            to the State only. Such a state of affairs will exist only until
D
            Parliament may at any time make a law adding to, or amending,
            varying or repealing the law made by the State Legislature under
            the proviso to Article 254. In that case it was held that part of the
            provisions were not repugnant in their application to the public
            men in Tamil Nadu but are void to the extent of public servants,
E           T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177 is a case where Section
            16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, in the
            Concurrent List prescribes a punishment of six years and fine. The
            West Bengal State Legislature emended it by West Bengal Amend-
            ment Act, 1973 and prescribed a punishment of imprisonment for
            life for the selfsame offence under Section 16(1) of. the Act.
F
            Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was amended by Parliament
            in 1976. The question arose whether by operation of proviso to
            Article 254(2) the State law is void. Since the Central Amendment
            Act, 1976 occupies the same filed imposing lesser punishment, the
            previous State law imposing punishment of imprisonment for life,
.G          though received the assent of the President, was held to·be void."

        It is not in dispute that the State Amendment Act 5 of 1991 was
  enacted and reserved for consideration of the President and received the
  assent of the President on 26.2.1991 and the Act was published in the
H Gazette on 27.2.1991. It is to be seen that as regards simultaneous publi-
                     MEERUTAUlHORITYv. SAIBIRSINGH                             537

    cation of the notification and the declaration in respect of acquisition of A
    the land for public purpose exercising the power of eminent domain in
    certain situation where possession was needed urgently, depending upon
    the local needs and the urgency, Government requires such power. Con-
    sequently, the State Legislature thought it appropriate that despite the
    enactment of the Amendment Act 68of1984 Amending Section 17(4), the
                                                                                B
    State needed further amendment. Resultantly, the U.P. Amendment Act 5
    of 1991 came to be made and it was given retrospective effect from the
    date of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has come into force, i.e., September
    24, 1984.

          It is true that the proviso was not happily worded. But a reading of · C
    it would clearly give us an indication that the proviso to sub-section (4)
    introduced by Section 2 of the Amendment Act 5 of 1991 would deal with
    both the situations, namely, the notifications published on or after Septem-
    ber 24, 1984 but before January 11, 1989 but also the declaration to be
    simultaneously published subsequent thereto. The literal interpretation D
    sought to be put up by Shri Pradeep Misra would defeat the legislative
    object. Therefore, ironing out the creases we are of the view that the
    proviso applies not only to the notifications and declarations simultaneous-
    ly published after the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act 68
    of 1984 but also to the future declarations as well. Thus, it could be seen
    that the proviso would operate prospectively and retrospectively from April E
    24, 1984 applying to the previous notifications and declarations but also to
    the notification and declaration to be published subsequently.

          It is true that normally the Legislature has to give effect to the
    judgment of the court only to cure the defects pointed out in the previous        F
    judgment so that the operation of the law would be consistent with the law
    declared by this Court. But in view of the peculiarity, namely, the special
    needs of the State, Article 254(2) itself gives such a power to the State
    legislature to amend the law to m'lke applicable in relation to that State
    though Central Law may be inconsistent with the law operating in other
    States. In other words, when the topic is occupied in the Concurrent List,        G
    uniformity of the operation of the law is not the rule but simultaneous
    existence of the inconsistency would also operate in the same filed. But
    when the State Amendment was reserved and received the assent of the
    President to the extent of inconsistency it is saved in relation to that State.
•   Therefore, the amendment by proviso to Section 17(4) is not invalid. Any          H
    538                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A other construction would dry out the power of the State Legislature to
    enact the law on the subject of acquisition.

        It is seen that Section 3 of the Amendment Act 5 of 1991 seeks to
  validate the illegal declarations made simultaneously with the publication
  of the Section 4 notification and in some cases even prior to the publication
B of Section 4 notification; it also seeks to validate certain acquisitions
  envisaged thereunder. This validation is not illegal. Shri Misra contended
  that since the appeals were pending before this Court, the Legislature
  would not be competent to amend the law so as to take away the effect of
  the decisions of this Court. In support thereof he contended that leave was
C granted by this Court and it was directed to post these cases along with
  the main matter, i.e., Radhey Shyam Nigam's case. Since the matters were
  not disposed of, the amendment was brought about to defuse the effect of
  the judgment. Therefore, the amendment is not valid in law. We find no
  force in the contention.
D
           Government of Andhra Pradesh v. H.M. T, [1975) Supp. SCR 384 was
    a case where pending appeals in this Court the Legislature has amended
    the Gram Panchayat Act and suitably defined 'house' which was found to
    be defeetive as declared by a judgment of A.P. High Court under appeal.
    Amendment was made to the Gram Panchayat Act. When the Validation
E   Act was challenged, a bench of three judges of this Court had· upheld. the
    validity of the Amendment Act and held that the State Legislature has not
    overruled or set aside the judgment of the High Court. It has amended the
    definition of 'house' by substitution of a new Section 217 for the old section
    and it has provided that the new definition shall have retrospective effect
F   notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of
    any court or other authority. In other words, it has removed the basis of
    the decisions rendered by the High Court so that the decisions would not
    have been given in the altered circumstances. The same ratio applies to the
    facts in this case.

G       It is then contended by Shri Krishnamani, learned Senior counsel
  appearing for some of the appellants in cross appeals that in the Amend-
  ment Act two inconsistent dates for coming into force of the Act and giving
  effect to the provisions of the Act have been introduced. That is also
  impermissible. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the
H Amendment Act 5 of 1991 was given effect from the date when the
                MEERUTAUTifORITYv. SATBIRSINGH                        539

Amendment Ordinance was published in the Gazette but the effect of the A
amendment was to remove the defects pointed out and to validate the
notifications and declarations which otherwise would be invalid. Conse-
quently, the retrospective effect was given from the date of the issuance of
the Ordinance to the Act and it came into operation retrospectively from
the date of judgment. Under those circumstances, we do not find any
                                                                             B
inconsistency in the operation of the Act or invalidity in giVing two dates
for the respective operation of the provisions of the Act.

       Then it is contended by Smt. S. Janani, learned co.unsel for the
appellants in cross appeals that the High Court was not justified in reject- C
ing 5 of the contentions raised by the appellants. The exercise of the power
is arbitrary. She has highlighted her point by placing before us a map in
which some of the portions were omitted from acquisition while lands in
 question came to be acquired. Therefon:;, it is arbitrary exercise of the
 power. We find no force in the contention. When we have enquired from
the counsel appearing for the M.D.A., it was pointed out that the lands left D
out were agricultural lands which could be acquired under the Land
Reforms Act and that, therefore, they had not resorted to the acquisition
under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also pointed, out that some of the
lands were abadi is situated, were not acquired. Shri Rajeev Dhawan,
learned senior counsel for the MDA further contended that certain lands
were left out where greenery is in existence and that was not sought to be E
 disturbed so as to maintain ecology. Mrs. Janani has pointed pointed out
 that the Kanugo had intimated that th~ respondents are free to construct
 houses without obtaining permission. The High Court has pointed 'out that
 such construction was invalid in law and therefore the notification under
 section 17(4) was not to be sustained on that ground. The view of the High
 Court is not correct in law. We find no force in the contention. It is seen F
 that where large extent of land was acquired, mere existence of some
 houses even if they were constructed, may be according to rules or may
 not be according to rules, the exercise of the power under section 17(4) by
 the Government dispensing with the enquiry does not become invalid,
 when there was urgency to take possession of the acquired land. It is now G
 settled legal position that acquisition for planned development of housing
 scheme is also urgent purpose as laid down by this Court inAflatoon v. Lt.
 Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1975] 4 SCC 285 and Smt. Pista Devi v. M.DA..,
 (19861 4 SCC 251 and in recent judgment of this Court in State of Tamil
 Nadu v. Krishnan, [1996) 7 SCC 450. In the light of the settled legal position
 the acquisition for housing development is an urgent purpose and exercise H
    540                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   of the power under section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under Section
    SA is not invalid.

           Mrs. Janani has further contended that since no developments have
    been undertaken and no plants have been prepan::d, the acquisition is bad
    in law. We find no force in the contention. Under the U.P. Urban Develop-
B   ment Act it is not mandatory that the entire scheme should be prepared
    prior to the notification under section 4(1) was published. Similar situation
    was considered by this Court in L. Kiish~zan's case (supra) and it was held
    that the acquisition on that account is not bad in law. Accordingly we hold
    that the exercise of the power under section 4(1) and declaration under
C   section 6 are not vitiated by any manifest error of law warranting to quash
    the declaration under section 6 as was done by the High Court.

          The appeals of the Meerut Development Authority are accordingly
    aJlowed. The appeals of the claimants-respondents stand dismissed. The
    writ petition also stands dismissed. But in the circumstances, without costs.
D
           Shri Markandeya, learned counsel has pointe'd out that in some of
    the cases despite the status quo order passed by this Court, some of the
    respondents/appellants in contempt case have carried out the constructions
    and that, therefore, he has taken out contempt proceedings for violation of
    the orders of the court. We need not take any further steps in this case.
E   Suffice to state that any constructions will not bind the authority nor are
    they entitled to compensation for these illegal constructions. The same
    would be taken note of by the Land Acquisition Officer at ·the time of
    passing the award and would be dealt with appropriately. The contempt
    petitions are accordingly dismissed. The Land Acquisition Officer should
    pass the award within six months from the date of the receipt of this order.
F
          Civil Appeal Nos. 2313-14 of 1997.

                                      ORDER

G          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
H   until the notification under Section 4{1) was published in accordance with
                  MEER UT AUTHORI1Y v. SATBIR SINGH                           541

law. Therefore, the notification is bad in law. The High Court noted, as a .A,
fact, that the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under
Section 6 were simultaneously published on October 12, 1974. T71ere is 1w
bar on the Govemment making the order that before publication of Section
4( I) declaratio11 u11der 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 SA. It is settled B
 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
th¢ 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 c
'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. D
 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 simul- E
 taneously 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 con-
 tentions have been pressed before the High Court, though might have been F
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,               G
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.


G.N.                                                         Appeals dismissed.