The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 5-A , Section 6

Land acquisition - Dispensation of enquiry u/s. 5-A of the Act - Justifiability - Respondent State issued notification u/s. 4 r/w s. 17(4) of the Act for the construction of District Jail - Respondent subsequently issued notification u/s. 6 r/w s. 17(1) of the Act thereby dispensing with the opportunity of hearing of landowners and enquiry u/s. 5-A of the Act - Appellants challenged the notifications and consequential dispensation - Held - Acquisition of the land for public purpose by itself should not justify the exercise of power of eliminating enquiry u/s. 5-A in terms of s. 17 (1) and s. 17 (4) of the Act - Court should take judicial notice of the fact that certain public purpose such as development of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas by their intrinsic nature and character contemplated planning, execution and implementation of the schemes which generally took time of few years - Hence, the land acquisition for said public purpose did not justify the invoking of urgency provisions under the Act - In the instant case, District Magistrate had sent a proposal to the Principal Secretary, Home/Prisons, for acquisition of land for the construction of District Jail on 24-1-2024 which was undoubtedly a public purpose - After the lapse of 5 years in the year 2008, the State Government asked District Magistrate to trace availability of lands for acquisition for construction of the District Jail in the proximity to District Headquarters and further requested the Selection Committee to recommend the land suitable for the said purpose - Selection Committee recommended the acquisition of appellants' land as suitable for the construction of the Jail but it took two years for the State Government to issue the notifications u/ss. 4 and 6 respectively, thereby invoking the urgency provisions u/s. 17 of the Act - Series of events showed lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of the State Government - In such circumstances, the respondents were not justified in invoking the urgency provisions u/s. 17 of the Act, thereby depriving the appellants of their valuable right to raise objections and opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to persuade them that their property may not be acquired - HC order was set aside - Appeal allowed.

Found In:  Citation