http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NAVNEET RAM BATRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/09/1975

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 2144            1976 SCR  (1) 826

ACT:      Land   Acquisition   Act-Sec. 4  (1) 5A  17  (1)    and 17(4)-Urgency     Clause.-.  Dispensing   with  meaning   of objections-Person entitled  to object-whether  any person in the locality  can  object  or  person  interested  ill  land concerned only an object.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant   is  a   tenant  or  Plot  No.  428.  A notification was   issued  under Section  4 (1)  of the Land Acquisition   Act   for setting   up an industrial estate in respect of  Plot No.    428    and  Plot    No.  436.  By  a notification under Section 17 (4) the  provisions of section 5A were  dispensed with  in the  ground that  provisions  of section 17(1)  (Urgency) were  applicable.  The    appellant filed a  Writ Petition  in Hugh  Court challenging  the said notification issued  under section  17 (4)  The Single judge dismissed the  Writ    Petition.  An  appeal  filed  to  the Division Bench  was  also dismissed.      On   an appeal  by Special  Leave, it  was contended by the appellant   that  there was a pucca construction on Plot No.   436 which  was also notified for acquisition under the impugned notification   and  consequently the  provisions of Section 17   (4)  would not be applicable to that land as it was not  arable or  waste land and  could not be acquired by dispensing with  the  enquiry  under section 5A and as such, the whole notification is bad and  should be quashed.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD:      1. Admittedly  the appellant’s  land  is  a  waste  and arable land   and thus falls under section 17(1). The person who   could have   taken  objection  to  the  enquiry  under section 5A   being   dispensed:   with was the owner of Plot No. 436.  He has  not   objected to   the acquisition it is, therefore, not  open to  the   appellant to    question  the validity of the notification. If the  owner  of Plot No. 436 had objected  to the  notification different  considerations might arise.  Sarjoo Prasad  v. State  of U.P. (AIR 1965  SC 1763) distinguished. [1827E-F]      2. Section  5A should  be understood in the back ground of section  4(1). Section 4 ( I ) requires only the locality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

in which  the land  is  situate,  to  be  mentioned  in  the notification. But   in  actual  practice  the survey numbers of the  lands   sought   to   be acquired  are given in such notifications. The  question of   notifying    the  locality might probably  arise when  all the  lands in   village  are sought to  be acquired.  Otherwise. the word  locality is  a word of  such indefinite  import that  it is   difficult  to conceive of  any locality  in any  particular village  being notified for  acquisition. When a locality in the sense of a village or  a group  of villages in notified for acquisition any person  interested in any land in that locality would be entitled to  be, heard  under   section  5A.  But where land proposed to   be  acquired  is specifically mentioned in the notification it  is only  the person interested in that land who is  entitled to  be heard under section 5A.  That is why section 5A provides that any  person  interested may  object to   the acquisition  of land  or of  any   land   in    the locality   as   the case may be. The latter part would apply to   a case  where lands in. any locality are notified under section 4   (  1  ) . That is the significance of the use of the words   "as   the  case  may be." Any person unconnected with land  cannot object   to the acquisition of the land in the locality  since he  would not  be a  person  interested. [828-F-H 829A-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL   APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No.  1154 of 1972.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated 18th   December,  1969 of the Allahabad High Court  in Special Appeal No. 324 of 1962. 827      Yogeshwar   Prasad,   S. K.  Bagga, Mrs.  S. Bagga  and Miss Rani Arora, for the appellant.      G. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana, for the respondent.      The Judgment of the Court, was delivered by      ALAGIRISWAMI,   J. The  appellant is  a tenant of  plot No. 428  in mauza Dehra Khas, pargana Central Doon, district Dehradun. This land along with some other pieces of land was notified under  s. 4(1)  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  on February 8,  1962 for acquisition for the purpose of setting up  an   industrial  estate   at  Dehradun.   By  the   same notification, under  s. 17(4)  of the  Act   it was directed that the  provisions of s. 5A shall not apply on  the ground that   the provisions  of s.  17(1) were applicable  to  the facts   of the  case. He filed a writ petition out of  which this appeal arises for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the   notification   dated   8th February, 1962. He made   various allegations  which it  is not necessary to go into for  the   purpose of   this   appeal. A learned single Judge of   the   Allahabad   High  Court    dismissed    the petition and  an appeal  filed   by  him  was dismissed by a Division Bench of the same High Court.      The   only  point argued before us was that  there  was a pucca   construction  on  plot  No.  436  which  was  also notified   for acquisition  under the  impugned notification and consequently   the  provisions of  s.17(4) would  not be applicable to  that land as  it was not arable or waste land which could  be acquired  by   dispensing   with the enquiry under s.5A  and as  such the whole  notification  is bad and should be  quashed. Admittedly   the  appellant’s land  is a waste and arable land and thus falls under s.17 (1)  . There was therefore  no objection  to the  Government   dispensing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

with   the provisions  of s.5A  by resorting  to  the  power conferred by   s.17(4).   The  person who  could have  taken objection  to  the enquiry  under s. 5A being dispensed with was the  owner  of  plot No. 436. He has not objected to the acquisition. He  has taken  the compensation  awarded to him and walked  out. It is, therefore? not open to the appellant to question  the validity  of this notification. If possibly the owner  of the land sought to be acquired but any  person in the  locality derations  might arise.  The  appellant who is  only the owner of plot No. 428 in relation to  which  s. 17(1)   and 17(4) are applicable and therefore enquiry under s  5A could  properly  be  dispensed with, cannot object  to the   same notification   because    the  notification  also relates  to  another land to which s.17(1) and 17(4) are not applicable when  the owner  of that  land has  not chosen to challenge the notification.   on behalf  of  the  appellant, however, reliance  was   placed on   certain observations of this Court  in Sarju  Prasad v.   State  of U.P.(1)  to. the following effect:           "It was  contended by Mr. S. P. Sinha appearing on      behalf of   the  Municipal Board, Basti, that a part of      the land   notified  for   acquisition   was  waste  or      arable and  in support  of   his   contention,  counsel      referred us to certain revenue record. But      (1) A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1763. 828      if  only a part of the land is waste or arable and  the      rest is   not,  notification under  s. 17(4) dispensing      with compliance   with the requirements of s. 5-A would      be invalid.  It   would not  be open  to the  Court  to      regard the notification as partially good and partially      bad, for  if the  State had  no power  to dispense with      the   inquiry in  respect of  any part  of   the   land      notified under  s. 4(1), an inquiry must be held s. 5-A      giving an opportunity to persons interested in the land      notified to  raise   the objections   to  the  proposed      acquisition  and   in  that     inquiry    the  persons      interested cannot  be restricted  to raising objections      in respect of land other than waste or arable land "      That   case   is   the converse of  the  present  case. The appellant  therein was  a person  who  was  entitled  to object to   the  notification. Under those circumstances the question  whether     the  notification  is  to  be  quashed completely or  only partially   might well arise. But such a question cannot arise where a person  like the appellant has no right  to impugn  the notification.  It   was,   however, urged that  under s.  5-A(1) it   is  not only  the owner of the land  sought to  be acquired  but any   person  in   the locality may  object and  his objections  will have   to  be heard. Section 5-A(l) reads as follows:            "5A.(1)   Any  person interested  in  any    land      which has  been   notified under section 4, sub-section      (1), as  being   needed or  likely to  be needed  for a      public purpose or for a Company may, within thirty days      after the  issue of  the notification,  object  to  the      acquisition  of   the  land  or  of  any  land  in  the      locality.   as the case may be. "This section should be      understood in  the background  of the  provisions of s.      4(1) which reads as follows s            "4.(1)   Whenever it appears to  the  appropriate      Government  that  land  in any locality is needed or is      likely   to   be needed   for   any  public purpose,  a      notification   to  that  effect shall  be  published in      the official  Gazette, and   the  Collector shall cause      public notice  of the substance of such notification to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    be given at convenient places in the said locality." It    may  be  noticed  that  under  this  section  what  is necessary   is that  only the  locality the  land  in  which appears to the appropriate Government as needed or as likely to be needed for any public purpose need be specified in the notification under  that section.  But   in  actual practice always the  survey numbers  of   the   lands  sought  to  be acquired are  given in  such notifications. The  question of notifying the  locality might  probably arise  when all  the lands   in a village are sought to be acquired otherwise the word ’locality’  is a word of such indefinite import that it is   difficult to conceive of any locality in any particular village   being notified  for acquisition.  Therefore when a locality in the  sense of  a  village  or perhaps a group of villages     is    notified    for  acquisition  any  person interested in any 829 land in that locality would be entitled to be heard under s. 5A.  But   where  the   land  proposed  to  be  acquired  is specifically  mentioned  in  the notification it is only the person   interested   in that   land  who is  entitled to be heard under  s. 5A.  That is   why  s.5A   provides that any person interested  in any  land   which   has been  notified under s.(1)  may object to the acquisition  of  the land  or of   any land  in the  locality as  the case   may  be.  The latter part  would apply  to  a  case  where  lands  in  any locality  are   notified     under  s.  4(1).  That  is  the significance of the  use  of the words "as the case may be". To give and other  interpretation to this section would mean that any  person interested  in  any  land  which  has  been notified may  object to  the acquisition  of his land or  to the acquisition  of any  land ill the locality. This  cannot be  correct  because he would not be a person interested  in any land  in the  locality which is a pre-requisite before a person can object  to  the acquisition of any land. In other words   in   the background  of section  4 (1),  section  5A provides that  where  land in any locality is notified under section 4(1)  any person  who   is interested in any land in the locality  may object  to the  acquisition of his land or any land in the locality as the case may be.      We   are therefore  of opinion that there are no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs P.H.P.                                     Appeal dismissed. 830