Holding

A post‑notification delay of about a year does not invalidate the State’s invocation of section 17(1) and (4) to dispense with the inquiry under section 5‑A, and the acquisition of land, even if partly occupied by structures, is valid under section 17(1‑A) for planned development.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Meerut Development Authority sought to acquire about 412 acres of arable land on the outskirts of Meerut for a housing scheme, invoking section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the inquiry under section 5‑A. A notification was issued on 29 April 1980, but due to clerical errors the declaration under section 6 was delayed until 1 May 1981, a gap of nearly one year. The landowners challenged the acquisition, arguing that the delay vitiated the urgency clause and that portions of the land containing structures could not be taken as they were not waste or arable. The Supreme Court held that the post‑notification delay, in the absence of any mala‑fides, does not invalidate the State’s decision to invoke the urgency provision, and that under section 17(1‑A) the government may take possession of land other than waste or arable for planned development. It also rejected the contention that the omission of a specific reference to section 17(1‑A) in the notification was fatal. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the appeals.

Issues considered

The delay of nearly one year between the notification under section 4 and the declaration under section 6 vitiates the State's invocation of section 17(1) and (4) to dispense with the inquiry under section 5‑A.
Whether land that includes some super‑structures, not waste or arable, can be acquired under section 17(1) and the newly inserted section 17(1‑A) for planned development.
Whether the failure to expressly refer to section 17(1‑A) in the notification renders the acquisition invalid.
Whether the government is automatically entitled to take possession of land other than waste or arable when section 17(1) is invoked for sanitary improvement or planned development.

Legislation cited

Delhi Development Act, 1957s. 21(2)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(1), s. 17(1-A), s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5A, s. 6
Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1954s. 1-A
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

Subjects

Land acquisitionUrgency clauseSection 17Section 5-APost‑notification delayPlanned developmentPossession of non‑arable landRelief for expropriated persons

Judgment

' STATE OF U.P. ETC.
v.
A

SMT. PISTA DEVI
. & ORS.
.
B
SEPTEMBER 12, 1986

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 5A, 6, 17(1), (4) and 17(/A)~
Acquisition for urban housing-Urgency-Inquiry dispensed with-
Post-notification delay of one year in publishing declaration-Action
c
'- whether vitiated-Whether Government can take possession of land,
other than waste and arable.

Delhi Development Act, 1957: s. 21(2)-Provision of relief to
those being expropriated-Principle recommended to be followed by D
other Development Authorities.

The appellants are owners of arable land lying on the outskirts of.
Meerut City. The land was sought to be acquired by tbe Meerut De-
velopment Authority for its scheme to provide housing accommodation
to the residents of the city. The Collector, recommended the acquisition E
of the said land on December 13, 1979, stating that in view of tbe acute
shortage of houses in tbe city it was necessary that tbe State Govern-
ment invokes. 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
notification ~der s. 4( 1) of the Act dated April 29, 1980 was published
in the Gazette on July 12, 1980, stating that tbe provisions Qf sub-s. (1)
of s. 17 of the Act were applicable to the said land and !bat s. 5-A shall F
..__not apply to tbe proposed acquisition. After publication of the notifica-
tion the Collector noticed some errors in it which needed to be corrected
by a corrigendum. The corrigendum and the declaration under s•.6 of
the Act were issued on Max 1, 1981. The possession of the land was .
taken and handed over to the ;\uthority in July 1982 ..
G
The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court questioning
the notification under s. 4 and declaration 111\der s. 6 of the Act alleging
that the action of the Government in invoking s. 17(1) and dispensing
with the inquiry under s. SA were not called for since the case of
urgency put forward by the State Government had been belied by the
delay of nearly one year that had ensued between the date of notilica- H

743
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A tion under s. 4. and the declaration under s. 6 of the Act. It was also
contended that in the large extent of the land acquired there were some
buildings here and there and so the acquisition was not justified since
these portions were not either waste or' arable lands which could be
dealt with under s. I7(I).

B The High Court being of the view that the failure to issue the
declaration under s. 6 of the Act immediately after the notification under s.
4 was fatal, held that the notification dated April 29, I984J'under s. 4 which
contained a direction under s. I7(4) dispensing with the inquiry under s.
SA of the Act was invalid and, therefore, both the notification under s. 4and
the subsequent declaration made under s. 6 were liable to be quashed.
c
In the appeals by special leave to this Court on the question:
Whether in the circumstances of the case it could be said that on ac-
count of mere delay of nearly one year in the publication of the declara-
tion it could be said that the order made by the State Government
dispensing with compliance with s. SA at the time of publication .of the
D notification under s. 4(I) would stand vitiated in the absence of any
other material.

Allowing the appeals,

HELD: I. I Having regard to the enormous growth of population
E in the country the provision of housing accommodation in these days
has become a matter of national urgency. The schemes relating to de-
velopment of residential areas in the urban centres are so urgent that it
is necessary to invoke s. I7(1) of the Act to dispense with the inquiry
under s. SA. [749F-G]

F 1.2 In the instant case, there is no allegation of any kind of ma/a
fides on the part of either the Government or any of the officers, nor do
the respondents contend that there was no urgent necessity for provid-
ing housing accommodation to a large number of people of the city
·during the relevanttime. [749E]

G I. 3 The mere fact that on account of some error on the part of the
officials processing the case at the level of the Secretariat there was a
post-notification delay of nearly one year in issuing declaration under s.
6 is, therefore, not by itself sufficient to hold that the decision taken by
the State Government under s. 17(1) and (4) of the Act at the time of the
issue of the notification under s. ·4(1) of the Act was either improper or
H illegal. [7SIA-B] ·
STATEOFU.P. v. SMT. PISTA DEVI 745

Deepak Pahwa etc. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1985] (I) A
S.C.R. 588 referred to.

Narayan Govind Gavate etc. v. State of Maharashtra, [1977] (I)
S.C.R. 768 distinguished.

a
2.1 Where large extent of land is being acquired for planned
B
development of an urban area it would not be proper to leave small
portions, over which some super-structures have been constructed, out
of the development scheme. In a situation where there Is real urgency it
would be difficult to apply section 5-A of the Act in the case of few bits
of land on which some structures are standing and to exempt the rest of
the property from its application. [751D-E] c
2.2 Whether the land in question is waste or arable land has to be
jndgeit by looking at the general nature and condition ofland. [751E-F]

3.1 Whenever power under..s. 17(1) is invoked, the Government ·
automatically becomes entitled to take possession of land; other than D
waste and arable, by virtue of sub-s. (1-A) of s. 17 without further
declaration where the acquisition is for sanitary improvement or plan-
ned development. [752B-C] ·

3.2 In the instant case, the acquisition was for planned de-:elop-
ment. The mere omission to refer expressly to s. 17(1-A) of the Act in E
the notification cannot be considered to be fatal in this case. [752B]
\
4.1 It may be that many of the persons from whom lands have
been acquired are also persons without houses or shop sites and if they
are to be thrown out of their lands they would be exposed to serious
prejudice. Since the land is being.acquired fur providing residential acco- F
.__.
I mmodation to the people of Meerut those who are being expropriated on
account of the acquisition proceedings would also be eligible for some re-
lief at the hands of the concerned Development Authority. [752D-E I

4.2 Although s. 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which
provides for such relief is not in terms applicable to the present acquisi- G
tion proceedings, the provision nonetheless contains a wholesome
principle which should be followed by all Development Authorities
throughout the country when they acquire large tracts of land for the
purposes of land ·development in urban areas. [753B-C]

The Meerut Development Authority, for whose benefit the land in H
746 · SUPREt-IE COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A question has been acquired, it is hoped, will· as far as practicable, \--
provide a house site or shop site of reasonable size on reasonable terms
to each of the expropriated persons who have no houses or shop build-
ings in the urban area in question. [753C-D l

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1495-1507 and 1509-1511of1986 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 24.5.1985 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 7729/82, 12762/81, 7810,
7865, 8408, 8409, 840?, 8410, 8872, 9527, 9439, 2482; 5170, 5122, 7903 j
ahd 7904 of 1982.
c
.K. Parasaran, Attorney General, Anil Dev Singh, Mrs. S. Dixit,
B .P. Maheshwari and S.N. Agarwal for the Appellahts.

R.K. Garg, Raja Ram Agarwal, P.O. Sharma, M.C. Dhingra,
'D D .D. Gupta and Ashok Srivastava for the Re~pondents. ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMIAH, J. Meerut city which is situated in a den-
sely populated part of the State of Uttar Pradesh is growing very fast.
E The State Government constituted a Development Authority under
the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 for the city of Meerut for the purpose of tackling the problems of
town planning and urban development resolutely, since it felt that the
existing local body and other authorities in spite of their best efforts
had not been able to cope up with the problems to the desired extent.
F
The Meerut Development Authority sent a proposal to the Collec- ....
tor of Meerut for acquisition of 662 bighas 10 biswas and 2 biswanis of
land (approximately equal to 412 acres) situated at villages Mukarrabpur,
Plahera, Paragana-Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana, Distt. Meerut for its
housing scheme with the object of providing housing accommodation to
G the residents of Meerut city. After making necessary enquiries and re-
ceipt of the report from the tehsildar of Sardhana, the Colle•:tor was fully.
satisfied about the need for the acquisition of the land. He accordingly
wrote a letter on December 13, 1979 to the Commissioner and Secretary, ·
Housing and Urban Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh recom-
mending the acquisition of the above extent of land in the villages .nen-
H
STATEOFU.P. v. SMT. PISTADEVI [VENKAT~RAMIAH,J.] 747

tioned above and he also stated that since there was acute shortage A
of houses in Meerut city, it was necessary that the State Government
should invoke section 17(i) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He also submitted a certificate as
required by the Rules containing the relevant data on the basis of
which the Government could take a decision. In that certificate he B
stated that the acquisition of the land was very necessary for the
purposes of the housing scheme. The total value of the land was es-
timated to be about Rs.55,01,270.25 paise and the cost of trees and
structures was stated to be in the order of about Rs. 1 lakh. The
Secretary of the Meerut Development Authority also submitted his

- certificate in support of the acquisition of the land in. question .. He
stated that the proposed cost Oi the project was in the order of Rs. 48
crores. He also furnished the number of flats to be constructed and
house sites to be allotted. The certificate further stated that the land
c

which was proposed to be acquired was being used for cultivation and
that the said land had been proposed to be used for residential
purposes under the master plan of Meerut city. After taking into con-
D
sideration all the material before it including the certificates of the
Collector and the Secretary, Meerut Development Authority, referred
to above, the State Government published a notification under sub-
section (1) of section 4 of the Act notifying for general information
that the land mentioned in the Schedule was needed for a public
purpose, namely, for the construction of residential buildings for the
people of Meerut by the Meerut Development Authority under a plan- E
ned development scheme. The notification further stated that the
State Government being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 17 of the Act were applicable to the said land
.... · 1 inasmuch as it was arable land which was urgently required for the
·). public purpose, referred to above. The notification further directed
( - - that section 5-A of the Act shall not apply to the proposed acquisition. F
· The a,bove notification was published in the U .P. Gazette on July 12,
.--{. 1_980 and it was followed by a declaration under section 6 of the Act
which was issued on May 1, 1981. The possession 'of the land, which
had been notified for acquisition, was taken and handed over to the
Meerut Development Authority in July, 1982. Thereafter about 17
· persons who owned in all about 40 acres of land out of the total of G
about 412 acres acquired, filed writ petitions in the High Court of
Allahabad questioning the notification under section 4 and declaration
under section 6 of the Act on the ground that the action of the Govern-
ment in invoking section 17(1) of the Act and dispensing with the
inquiry under section 5-A of the Act was not called for in the circumst-
H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A ances of the case. The High Court after hearing the parties held that
the notification dated 29.4.1980 under section 4 of the Act which con-
tained a direction under section 17(4) of the Act dispensing with the
inquiry under section 5-A of the Act was an invalid one and, therefore,
both the notification under section 4 and the subsequent declaration
made under section 6 of the Act were liable to be quashed. Accord-
B
ingly they were quashed. ·

It should be stated here that whi:e only 17. persons owning about
40 acres of land had filed the writ petitions, the High Court set aside

c
the acquisition of the entire extent of about 412 acres. That was the
effect of quashing the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act
arid all subsequent proceedings as the relief was not confined to the
petitioners only. ,By the time the judgment of the High Court was
.
j
-
pronounced on May. 24, 1985, it is stated, that the Meerut Develop-
ment Authority had spent more than Rs.4 crores on the development
of the land which had been acquired. By then -854 houses had been
constructed on the land and 809 plots had been allotted by it to various
D persons. All the landowners other than the writ petitioners before the
High Court had been paid two-thirds of the compensation due to
them.

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the State of Uttar
Pradesh and the Meerut Development Authority have filed the above
E appeals by special leave.
The main ground on which the High Court set aside the im-
pugned notification and the declaration was that the case of urgency
put forward by the State Government for dispensing with the comp-
I
liance with the provisions of sectiqn 5-A of the Act had been belied by
F the delay of nearly one year that had ensued between the date of the --~
notification under section 4 and the date of declaration made under
section 6 of the A~t. It, however, rejected the contention of the }--•
petitioners based on the delay that had preceded the issue of the notifi-
cation under section 4 of the Act. The High Court observed that 'if the
Government were satisfied with the urgency it would have certainly
G issued declaration under section. 6 of the Act immediately after the
issue of the notification under section 4 of the Act.' It found that the
failure to issue declaration under section 6 of the Act immediately on
the part of the State Government was fatal. That there was delay of
neady one year between the publication of the notification under sec-
tion 4(1) of the Act containing the direction dispensing with the comp-
H liance with section 5-A of the Act and the date of publication of the
STATEOFU.P. v. SMT. PISTADEVI IVENKATARAMIAH,J.I 749

declaration issued under section 6 of the Act is no·t disputed. It is seen A
-{ from the record before us that after the publication of the notification
' under section 4( 1) of the Act, the Collector after going through ii
found that there were some errors in the notification which needed to
be corrected by issuing a corrigendum. Accordingly, he wrote a letter
to the State Government on 25.8.1980 pointing out the errors and
B
requesting the State Government to publish a corrigendum immedia-
tely. Both the corrigendum and the declaration under section 6 of the
Act were issued on May 1, 1981. It is on account of some error on the
part of the officials who were entrusted wit~ the duty of processing of
., the case at the level of the Secretariat there was a delay of nearly one

- \ · year between the publication of the notification under section 4( 1) and
., the publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act. The
question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the case
it could be said that on account of the mere delay of nearly one year in
c

the publication ()f the declaration it could be said that the order made
'""---1" by the State Government dispensing with the compliance with section
5-A of the Act at the time of the publication of the notification under
D
section 4(1) of the Act would stand vitiated in the absence of any other
material. In this case there is no allegation of any kind of mala fides on·
the part of either the Government or any of the officers, nor do the
respondents contend that there was no urgent necessity for providing
housing accommodation to a large number of people of Meerut city
~' during the relevant time. The letters and the certificates submitted by
the Collector and the Secretary of the Meerut Development Authority E
to the State Government before the issue of t)le notification under
section 4(1) of the Act clearly demonstrated that at that time there was
a great urgency felt by them regarding the provision of housing accom-
. I modation at Meerut. The State Government acted upon the said re-
). __ ports, certificates and other material which were before it. In the
f cucumstances of the case it cannot be said that the decision of the F
· State Government in resorting to section 17(1) of the Act was unwar-
·-{ ranted. The provision of housing accommodation in these days has
become a· matter of national urgency. We may "take judicial notice of
this fact. Now it is difficult to hold that in the case of proceedings
relating to acquisition of land for providing house sites it is unneces-
sary to invoke section 17(1) of the Act and to dispense with the comp- G
liance with section 5-A of the Act. Perhaps, at the time to which the
decision in Narayan Govind Gavate etc. v. State of Maharashtra, I1977]
(1) S.C.R. 768 related the situation might have been that the schemes
relating to development of residential areas in the urban centres were
not so urgent and it was not necessary to eliminate the inquiry under
H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition proceedings which had been
challenged in that case related to the year 1963. During this period of
nearly 23 years since then the population of India has gone up by hundreds
of millions and it is no longer possible· for the Court to take the view .
that the schemes of development of residential areas do not ·appear to
demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary inquiries under
B
section 5-A of the Act'. In Kasireddy Papaiah (died) and Ors. v. The
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., A.LR. 1975 A.P. 269. Chin-
nappa Reddy, J. speaking for the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
dealing with the problem of providing housing accommodation to
Harijans has observed thus:

c "That the housing conditions of Harijans all over the
country continue to be miserable even today is a fact of
-
which courts are bound to take judicial notice. History has
made it urgent that, among other problems, the problem of
housing Harijans should be solved expeditiously. The grea-
ter the delay the more urgent becomes the problem. There-
D. fore, one can never venture to say that the invocation of
the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for
providing' house sites for Harijans is bad merely because the
officials entrusted.with the task of taking further action in the
matter are negligent or tardy in the discharging of their
duties, unless, of course, it can be established that the ac-
E quisition itself is made with an oblique motive. The urgent
pressures of history are not to be undone by the inaction of
the bureaucracy. I am not trying to make any pontific pro-
nouncements. But I am at great pains to point out that
provision for house sites for Harijans is an urgent and pres-
sing necessity and that the invocation of the emergency
F provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to be
improper, in the absence of ma/a /ides, me.rely because of
the delay on the part of some Government officials." >-·
{Underlining by us)

G What was said by the learned Judge in the context of provision of
housing accommodation to Harijans is equally true about the problem
of providing hou•ing accommodation to all persons in the country
today having regard to the enormous growth of population in the
country. The observation made in the above decision of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh is quoted with approval by this Court in
H
STAIB OF U.l'. v. SMT. PISTADEVI [VENKATARAMIAH, J.J 751

Deepak Pahwa etc. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., [1985] (I) S.C.R. A.
588 even though in the above decision the Court found that it was not
necessary to say anything about the post-notification delay. We are of
the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the post-
t notification delay of nearly one year is not by itself sufficient to hold
that the decision taken by the State Government under section 17(1)
B
and (4) of the Act at the time of the issue of the notification under
section 4(1) of the Act was either improper or illegal.

It was next contended that in the large extent of land acquired
which was abour 412 acres there were some buildings here and there
, ~/ and so the acquisition of these parts of the land on which buildings
~ "., were situated was unjustified since those portions were not either c
waste or arable lands which could be dealt with under section 17(1) of
the Act. Thi.s contention has not been considered by the High Court.
We do not, however, find any substance in it. The Government was
. -y not acquiring any property which was substantially covered by build-
ings. It acquired about 412 acres of land on the out-skirts of Meerut
city which was described as arable land by the Collector. It may be true D
that here and there were a few super-structures. Jn a case of this
nature where a large extent of land is being acquired for planned
development of the urban area it would not be proper to leave the
small portions over which some super-structures have been cons-
Y.. tructed out of the development scheme. In such a situation where
there is real urgency it would be difficult to apply section 5-A of the E
Act in the case of few bits of land on which some structures are stand-
ing and to exempt the rest of the property from its application.
Whether the land in question is waste or arable land has to be judged

~
by looking at the general nature· and condition of the land. It is not
necessary in this case to consider any further the legality or the propri-
- ety of the application of section 17(1) of the Act to such portions of F
· land proposed to be acquired, on which super-structures were standing
.,..J
because of the special provision which is inserted as sub-section ( 1-A)
" of section 17 of the Act by the Land Acquisition (U.P. Amendment)
Act (20of1954) which reads thus:

"(1-A). The power to take possession ,under sub-section G
(1) may also be exercised in the case of land other than
waste or arable land where the land is acquired for, in
connection with sanitary improvements of any kind or
planned development.;,
It is no doubt true that in the notification issued under section 4 1:1
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] 3 S.C.R.

A of the Act while exempting the application of section 5-A of the Act to
th\! proceedings, the State Government had stated that the land in -,.....
question was arable land and it had not specifically referred to sub-
section (1-A) of section 17 of the Act under which it could take posses-
sion of land other than waste and arable land by applying the urgency
clause. The mere omission to refer expressly section 17(1-A) 'of the
B Act in the notification cannot be considered to be fatal in this case as
long as the Government had the power in that sub-section to take
lands other than waste and arable lands also by invoking the urgency
~
clause. Whenever power under section 17(1) is invoked the Govern-
ment automatically becomes entitled to take possession of land other
than waste and arable lands by virtue of sub-section (1-A) of section 17 )
c without further declaration where the acquisition is for sanitary im-
provement or planned development. In the present case the acquisi-
tion is for planned development. We do not, therefore find any subst-
ance in the above contention.
y
It is, however, argued. by the learned counsel for the respondents
D that many of the persons from whom lands have been acquired are also
persons without houses or shop sites and if they are to be thrown out of
their land they would be exposed to serious prejudice. Since the land is
being acquired for providing residential accommodation to the people
of Meerut those who are being expropriated on account of the acquisi-
tion proceedings would also be eligible for some relief at the hands of
E the Meerut Development Authority. We may at this stage refer to the '--f
provision contained in section 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act,
1957 which reads as follows:

"21(2). The powers of the Authority or, as the case may
be, the local authority concerned with respect to the dis-
F posal of land under sub-section (1) shall be so exercised as --\
to secure, so far as practicable, that persons who are living
or carrying on business or other activities on the land shall,
if they desire to obtain accommodation on land belonging
>-·
to the Authority or the local authority concerned and are
willing to comply with any requirements of the Authority
G or the local authority concerned as to its development and
use, have an opportunity to obtain thereon accommodation
suitable to their reasonable requirements on terms settled I
with due regard to the price at which any such land has
,A._
been acquired from them:

H Provided that where the Authority or the local au-
STATEOFU.P. v. SMT. P!STADEVI [VENKATARAMIAH,J.] 753

thority concerned proposes to dispose of by sale any land A
without any development having been undertaken or car·
ried out thereon, it shall offer the land in the first instance
to the persons from whom it was acquired, if they desire to
purchase it subject to such requirements as to its develop-
ment and use as the Authority or the local authority con-
cerned may think fit to impose."
B

Although the said section is not in terms applicable to the pre-
sent acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that the above provi-
sion in the Delhi Development Act contains a wholesome principle
which should be followed by all Development Authorities throughout
the country when they acquire large tracts of land for the purposes of c
land development.in urban areas. We hope and trust that the Meerut
Development Authority, for whose benefit the land in question has
been acquired, will as far as practicable provide a house site or shop
'"""('
site of reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated
persons who have no houses or shop buildings in the urban area in
question. D

. Having regard to what we have stated above, we are of the view
· that the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is liable
to be set aside. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed by the
respondents in the High Court. There is no order as to costs. E

P.S.S. Appeals allowed.