http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: MOHD. ALI & ORS. ETC.ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/09/1996

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, FAIZAN UDDIN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.