Supreme Court of India
JAI NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 808
- Decided
- 29 November 1995
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The expression "is likely to be needed" does not negate urgency; the Government’s subjective satisfaction of urgency and the Court’s directions justified invoking Section 17(4) and dispensing with Section 5‑A.
Summary
The petitioners challenged two notifications dated 6 January 1995 and 9 March 1995 issued under Sections 4, 6 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for land in Nilothi, Delhi, which was to be used for a sewage‑treatment plant (STP). They argued that the phrase "is likely to be needed" in the Section 4 notification indicated no present urgency, that Section 17(4) could not be invoked, and that the acquisition violated the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan which classified the land as agricultural green. The Supreme Court held that the expression "is likely to be needed" does not, by itself, preclude a finding of urgency; urgency is a matter of the Government’s subjective satisfaction and the Court’s own directions demonstrated the emergency. Consequently, the emergency provisions of Section 17(4) were validly applied and the land could be acquired despite the Master Plan classification. The Court dismissed the writ petitions with costs, upholding the acquisition.
Issues considered
- The phrase 'is likely to be needed' in a Section 4 notification precludes invoking Section 17(4) emergency provisions and dispensing with Section 5‑A objections?
- Whether acquisition of land classified as agricultural green in the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan for a sewage‑treatment plant is contrary to the public‑purpose requirement?
- Whether the State may acquire land for a public purpose notwithstanding its existing land‑use designation in planning documents.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 139-A(1)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(4), s. 4, s. 5-A, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionUrgencySection 17(4) emergency provisionPublic purposeSewage treatment plantEnvironmental lawMaster PlanSection 4 notificationSection 5-A objectionsDelhi pollution
Judgment
JAI NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. A
v..
UNION OF INDIA
NOVEMBER 29, 1995
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4, 6 and 17(4)-Notifications
· unde~Validity of-Expressions 'is needed' and 'is likely to be needed'-Ac-
tion u/sl7(4)-Existence of urgency must be reflected in need of aquisition-
Scope of inteiference by courts-Acquisition for constrnction of Sewage treat- c
ment plant in Delhi-Emergency provisions rightly invoked-Whatever may be
user of land under Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan--State can
always acquire the land for public purpose.
The Petitioners challenged the notifications dated 6.1.1995 and
9.3.1995 u/ss 4, 6 and 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in D
dispute was being acquired for a public purpose namely for setting up of
pumping station/sewerage treatments plant (STP) for the planned develop-
ment of Delhi. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 had been
applicable and the enquiry u/s 5-A had been dispensed with. The
petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings on the ground that E
there was no urgency and as such the provisions of Section 17(4) of the
Act could not be invoked and the right of the landowners to file objections
u/s 5-A could not be taken away and there was no application of mind on
the part of the Lt. Governor ofNCT and that the land in dispute was shown
in the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan as agricultural green
whereas it was being acquired for the public purpose of setting up the STP, F
therefore, the acquisition was contrary to the Master Plan and the Zonal
Development Plan .
.. Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The power under Section 4 or" the Land Acquisition Act G
can be exercised when it appears to the Government that the "land in any
locality is needed for for any public purpose". The expression"is needed"
indicates the existing need whereas the expression "is likely to be needed"
refers to the future r.eed. When the later expression is used in the notifica-
tion under Section 4 ofthe Act it may be suggestive of the fact that there H
769
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A , may not be emergency to acquire the land, but the question of urgency
cannot be determined solely by the expressions used in the notification
under Section 4 of the Act. The emergency must be reflected in the need of
the acquisition. The existence of urgency is a matter which is entirely based
on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. The courts do not inter-
fere unless the reasons given are wholly irrelevant and there is no applica-
B tion of mind. When a notification under Section 4 of the Act uses the
expression "is likely to be needed" it may be necessary, in a given case to
examine the records or the attendant circumstances to satisfy that there
was material before the Government justifying the order under Section 17,
dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act. If the public
C purpose on the face of it shows that the land is needed urgently, that by
itself is a relevant circumstance for justifying the action under Section
17(4) of the Act. [773-E-H; 774-A-B]
State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Ors. Etc. Etc., AIR (1986) SC 2025,
D relied on.
1.2. This court was monitoring the constructions of Sewage Treat-
ment Plants (STPs) in various parts of Delhi in the public interest
proceedings. The land in dispute-Keshavpur STP - is being acquired
under the directions of this Court. Even the impugned notifications under
E Section 4 read with 17 and Section 6 of the Act have been issued under the
directions of this Court. This Court repeatedly indicated in the or-
ders/directions that there was urgency in taking over the possession of the
land, under acquisition, for the construction of STP at Keshavpur. The ·
authorities were directed to take up the work of land acquisition and
F construction of STP's on war-footing. "Likely" in the background of the this
Court's orders passed from time to time for a time bound programme for
setting up the STPs means, for purposes of this case, "certainly" and
"urgently". [779-G-H; 780-A-B]
1.3. Delhi - the capital of India - one of the world's great and historic
G cities has come to be listed as third/fourth most polluted and grubbiest
city in the world. Apart from air- pollution, the waters of river Yamuna
are wholly contaminated. It is a paradox that the Delhites - despite river
Yamuna being the primary source of water supply- are discharging almost
totality of untreated sewage into the river. There are eighteen drains
H including Najafgarh drain which carry industrial and domestic waste
JAI NARAIN v. U.0.1. 771
including sewage to river Yamuna. Thirty eight smaller drains fall into A
Nazafgarh drain. The Nazafgarh drain basin is the biggest polluter to river
Yamuna. Eight of the drains including Najafgarh drain are untrapped,
four fully trapped and remaining six are partially trapped. All these
eighteen drains, by and large, carry untreated industrial and domestic
waste and fall into river yamuna. The river yamuna enters Delhi at B
Wazirabad in the North and leaves at South after travelling a distance of
about twenty five kilometres. The water of river yamuna till it enters
Najafgarh is fit for drinking after treatment, but the confluence of Najaf-
garh drain and seventeen other drains make the water heavily polluted.
The water quality of Yamuna, in Delhi stretch, is neither fit for drinking
nor for bathing. The Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) level in the river C
has gone so high that no flora or fauna can survive. It is of utmost
importance and urgency to complete the construction of the STPs in the
city of Delhi. The project is of great public importance. It is indeed of
national importance. There was utmost urgency to acquire the land in
dispute and as such the emergency provisions of the Act were rightly D
invoked. [780-B-G]
1.4. Whatever may be the user of the land under the Master Plan
and Zonal Development Plan the State can always acquire the same for
public purpose in accordance with the law of the land. In any case the
object and purpose of constructing the STPs is to protect the environment, E
control pollution and in the process maintain and develop the agricultural
green. [780-H; 781-A]
-i
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : T.C. (C) Nos. 73-75 of 1995.
Under Article 139-A(l) of the Constitution of India. F
Altaf Ahmad Additional Solicitor General, R. Venugopal Reddy,
P.P. Malhotra, Jitendra Sharma, Ms. Indra Jaising, Ms. Seema Midha,
Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Y.P. Mahajan, Anil Katiyar, Ms. Gunwant
Dara, P.Gaur, R.N. Keswani, Anil Pawar, Sudharshan Joan, S.N. Sikka,
B.K. Prasad, S.K. Bhattacharya, S.A. Mattoo, D.N. Goburdhan, Ravinder G
Narain, S. Sukumaran, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, K. S. Bhati,
D.S. Mehra, Ms. Anjini Aiyagiri, Ms. A. Subhashini, R.K. Maheshwari,
Ravinder Bana, S.P. Sharma, M.S. Vashisht, Rajinder Tyagi, V.B. Saharya,
R.S. Suri, AK. Srivastava, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. Shiel Sethi, Ranbir Yadav
and Vijay Panjwani for the appearing parties. H
772 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A M.C. Mehta, in-person for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KULDIP SINGH, J. These transfer cases are the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India which were filed before the Delhi
B High Court. The petitioners have challenged the notifications dated
January 6, 1995 and March 9, 1995 under Sections 4, 6 and 17(4) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) relating to the revenue estate of
village Nilothi, National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.
This Court is monitoring the constructions of Sewage Treatment
C Plants (STPs) in various parts of Delhi in the public interest proceedings
in writ petition (civil) No. 4677/85 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court in M.C. Melita's case the NCT - Administration has
issued the notifications dated January 6, 1995 and March 9, 1995 under the
D Act which have been impugned in the transferred cases. Since this Court
is seized of the matter relating to the construction of STP at Keshopur on
the land in dispute, it was deemed appropriate to transfer the writ petitions
from the file of the Delhi High Court to this Court.
The land in dispute is being acquired for a public purpose namely
E for setting up of pumping station/sewerage treatment plant in villages
Jasola, Nilothi and Shaffipur Ranola for the planned development of Delhi.
The provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of th~ Act have been made
applicable and as such the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act has been 4
dispensed with. The relevant part of the notification dated January 6, 1995
is as under:
F
"No. F.9(46)/94-L&B/LN298 : Whereas it appears to the Lt.
Governor, of Delhi that the land is likely to be required to be taken
by Government at public expense for a public purpose; namely for
setting up of pumping station/sewerage Treatment plant in village
Jasola for the planned Development of Delhi, it is hereby notified
G that the land in the locality described below is likely to be required
for the above purpose ........ The Lt. Governor being of opinion
that provisions of sub-section (I) of Section 17 of the said Act are
applicable to this land, is further pleased under sub-section 4 of
the said section to direct that the provisions of section 5-A shall
H not apply." ·
JAi NARAIN v.. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J~) 773
Section 4 of the Act to the relevant-extent is reproduced: A
"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers
thereupon. (1) Whenever it appears to the (appropriate Govern-
ment) that land in any locality (is needed or) is likely to be needed
for any public purpose ....... "
B
Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged
the acquisition proceedings on the following grounds :
(1) The notification under Section 4 of the Act uses the expression
"likely to be needed" which means there was no existing need and C
the land was required some time in the future. There was, thus,
no urgency and as such the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act
could not be invoked and the right of the land owners to file
objections under Section 5-A of the Act could not be taken away.
It further indicates that there was no application of mind on the
part of the Lt. Governor of NCT; (2) The land in dispute is shown D
in the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan as agricultural
green whereas it is being acquired for the public purpose of setting
up the STP. The acquisition is contrary to the Master Plan and
the Zonal Development Plan.
The First contention raised by the Learned counsel is based on the E
language of Section 4 of the Act. The power under Section 4 of the Act
can be exercised when it appears to the Government that the "land in any
locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose". It is no
doubt correct chat the expression "is needed" indicates the existing need
whereas the expression "is likely to be needed" refers to the future need. F
When the later expression is used in the notification under Section 4 of the
Act it may be suggestive of the fact that there may not be emergency to
acquire the land, but the question of urgency cannot be determined solely
by the express::on used in the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The
emergency must be reflected in the need of the acquisition. The existence G
of urgency is a matter which is entirely based on the subjective satisfaction
of the Govermnent. The courts do not interfere unless the reasons given
are wholly irrelevant and there is no application of mind. When a notifica-
tion under Section 4 of the Act uses the expression "is likely to be needed"
it may be necesi;ary, in a given case, to examine the records or the attendant
circumstances to satisfy that there was material before the Government H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A justifying the Order under Section 17, dispensing with the provisions of
Section 5-A of the Act. If the public purpose on the face of it shows that
the land is needed urgently, that by itself is a relevant circumstance for
justifying the action under Section 17(4) of the Act. This Court in State of
U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Others Etc. Etc., AIR 1986 SC 2025 - where
urgency provisions were invoked to acquire the land for housing schemes
B - held as. under :
"In the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the decision
of the State Government in resorting to S. 17(1) of the Act was
unwarranted. The provision of housing accommodation in these
c 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 unnecessary to invoke S.17(1) of the Act and to
dispense with the compliance with S. 5-A of the Act."
D
The land in dispute is being acquired for the construction of STP.
This Court in M.C. Melita's case (supra), while directing the closure of the
stone crushers in the city of Delhi, on May 15, 1992 observed as under :
"We are conscious that environmental changes are the inevitable
E consequence of industrial development in our country, but at the
same time the quality of environment cannot be permitted to be
damaged by polluting the Air, Water and Land to such an extent
that it becomes a health-hazard for the residents of the area. We
-are constrained to record that Delhi Development Authority.
F Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Central Pollution Control Board,
and Delhi Pollution Control Committee have been wholly re-miss
in the performance of their statutory duties and have failed to
protect the environments and control air-pollution in the Union
Territory of Delhi. Utter disregard to environment has placed
Delhi in an unenviable position ofbeing the world's third grubbiest,
G most polluted and unhealthy city as per a study conducted by the
World Health Organisation. Needless to say that every citizen has
a right to fresh air and to live in pollution-free environments."
While dealing with the construction of STP's in Delhi. th~s Court in Melita's
H case passed the following order on April, 22, 1994 :
JAI NARAIN v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 775
"The Delhi Development Authority has filed an affidavit through A
its Secretary Mr. VN Bansal. It is stated that the Authority is ready
and willing to provide land to the M.C.D. for setting up of the
Sewage Treatment tanks. Keeping in view the urgency of the matter,
we request Mr. Subhash Sharma, Commissioner, M.C.D., Mr. S.P.
Jkhanwal, Vice Chairman, D.D.A., Mr. Ashok Kumar, Additional B
Commissioner, Water and Mr. JK Mathur, Chief Engineer of the
Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking to be
present in Court on May 6, 1994. We are requesting the officers
to be present in Court so that we can have their view points for
t!king appropriate decisions on the spot. Needless to say that with
\
th't increase of population in Delhi, it is of utmost urgency to set up C
the Sewage Treatment Plants within the time-bound Schedule."
Thereafter, on May 13, 1994 this Court issued various directions regarding
the transfer of land to the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
Undertaking (the Undertaking) for the STP's in Delhi and finally directed D
as under:
"We direct the D.D.A. through Mr. S. Roy, Commissioner, Lands
to hand over the possession of the vacant land available for setting
up of the Sewage Treatment Plants in various colonies within four
weeks from today. We further direct the M.C.D. to make payment E
in respect of these lands simultaneously. Mr. S. Prakash, Engineer-
in-Chief will be responsible for taking over the land and also for
making payment to the D.D.A. on behalf of the M.C.D. The work
for setting up of Sewage Treatment Plants shall be undertaken
forthwith and shall be completed at war- footing."
F
This Court on August 1, 1994, noticed the progress made in the Construc-
tion of the STP's in the following words :
"Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Delhi
Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking has produced
before us a chart showing tentative schedule of completion and G
commissioning of Sewage Treatment Plants in various areas in
Delhi. It is stated that the first appraisal is the soil investigation.
The soil investigation is to be done by the Investigating team of
the Undertaking within four weeks from today. In any case, we
direct the Undertaking to complete it within four weeks. Thereafter, H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A the Undertaking shall float and finalise the tenders within 6 weeks.
The progress report and the name of the company/person
whose tender would be accepted shall be submitted to this Court
by 24-10-94. List it on 24.10.94."
B Regarding the STP in Okhla area it was found that the dispossession,
of the landowners, in respect of large area of land under acquisition was
stayed by the Delhi High Court in the writ petitions filed by them. This
Court in M.C. Mehta's case passed the following order on December 14,
1994:
c "We directed the D.D.A. to issue notices through Newspapers
consecutively for two days stating therein that the persons who
have obtained stay orders from various courts be present in this
Court at 2.00 p.m. on December 14, 1994. The notices were
published by the D.D.A. as directed by us. In response to the
D notices Mr. S.M. Ashri, Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Mr. Maninder Singh
and Mr. L.C. Chachi, Advocates are present on behalf of the land
owners. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
various land owners is that the Notification under Sections 4 and
6 were issued in the year 1964 and 1966 respectively. According
to them, the possession of land is still with them. It is further stated .
E
by the learned counsel that they are entitled to compensation at
the rate of market value of the land today......
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we
direct that 13 writ petitions mentioned in the public notice pub-
F lished in the Hindustan Times dated November 30, 1994, be
transferred from the Delhi High Court to the file of this Court.
These petitions be listed for final disposal in the 2nd week of
February, 1995.
Meanwhile, we vacate the stay orders granted by the High
G Court in all these writ petitions and direct the Delhi Administra-
tion to take over the possession of the land and hand over to the
Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking."
Further directions were i.ssued to the Delhi Administration on
H December 14, 1994 take over the land from DDA and acquire where
1AINARAINv. U.0.1. [KlJLDIP SINGH,J.) 777
necessary for the STPs at various places in Delhi. A
This Court has been issuing time-bound directions for the procure-
ment of land for the STP's in various parts of Delhi. The impugned
notifications regarding Keshopur STP were issued under the directions of
this Court. On January 23, 1995 this Court passed the following order
regarding the land in dispute : B
"Notification under Section 4 read with section 17(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act has been issued. The Land in the Notification has
been identified by way of a plan indicating boundaries and not by
the Khasra numbers. To issue Notification under section 6, exact C
Khasra numbers of the land in dispute are required. Mr. Jaitely
states that the D.D.A. will give exact khasra number of the land
within one week from today. The Notification be issued within two
weeks from today."
In Melita's case, this Court on March 24, 1995 observed as under : D
"A very grim picture emerges regarding increase of pollution in
the city of Delhi from the two affidavits filed by Shri DS Negi,
Secretary (Environment), Govt. of Delhi. He has pointed out that
the population of Delhi which was about 17 lakh in 1951 has gone
up to more than 94 lakhs as per the 1991 census. In fact, more
E
than 4 lakh people are being added to the population of Delhi
every year out of which about 3 lakh are migrants. Delhi has been
categorised as the fourth most polluted city in the world with
respect to concentration of Suspended Particular Metal (SPM) in
the ambient atmosphere as per W odd Health Organisation F
Report, 1989. From NEERl's annual report 1991 it is obvious that
the major contributions, so far as air pollution is concerned, is of
the vehicular traffic but the industries in the city are also contribut-
ing about 30% of the air pollution. So far as the discharge of
effluent in Yamuna is concerned, the industries are the prime G
contributors apart from the MCD and NDMC which are also
discharging sewage directly into the river Yamuna. We are dealing
with the sewage problems in separate proceedings."
Thereafter, on April 21, 1995 this Court, regarding the construction of
STP's observed as under: H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A "Treatment of sewage is of utmost importance for health and for
supply of pure water to the citizens of Delhi. Any delay in this
respect is health-hazard and cannot be tolerated."
The land for Keshav Pur STP was not bejng made available. There was
considerable delay in completing the acquisition proceedings. This Court
B on August 4, 1995 passed the following order :
"So far as Keshavpur is concerned, land has to be acquired by the
State Govt. Mr. Arnn Jaitley, learned senior counsel states that
although he is not appearing for the Delhi Administration, yet he
c has information that some steps have already been taken by the
State Govt. There is nobody in the Court to assist us on behalf of
Delhi Admn. We are told that Mrs. Suman Swamp is the Secretary,
In-charge of the Land and Building Deptt. We are prima facie of
the view that there is obvious inaction on the part of the Delhi
Admn. in complying with our orders. Before we take any action in
D this respect we direct Ms. Suman Swamp to file an affidavit in this
Court within one week giving over-all action the Govt. has initiated
in respect of acquiring land in setting up of Sewage Treatment
Plant in Keshavpur. The affidavit be filed by 1. PM on 11th August,
1995. List the matter on 11th August, 1995 at 2 PM."
E Thereafter, on August 11, 1995 this ·Court issued following direction
regarding the STP at Keshavpur :
"Pursuant to this Court's order dated August 4, 1995 Ms. Suman
Swarup, Secretary Land and Building Department, Government of
F National Capital Territory of Delhi has filed an affidavit. Ms. Geeta
Luthra, learned counsel appearing for the Secretary, Land &
Building states that the necessary procedure for acquiring 106
Hectares of land in Keshavpur for the purpose of setting up of
Sewage Treatment Plant has already been completed. She further
states that the advance compensation is to be disbursed to the
G land-owners. Mr. Arun Jaitley, Learned counsel states that the
DDA shall hand-over the compensation amount to the administra-
tion within three days from today. Learned counsel further states
that about 30 Hectares of acquired land is under the authorised/un-
authorised possession of various persons. According to her, the
H remaining 76 Hectares of land can be handed over to the Under-
JAI NARAIN v: U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 779
taking with immediate effect. We request the Committee consisting A
of Mr. PC Jain, Mr. JK Mathur and Mr. SP Chakrabarti to visit
the area and identify the 76 Hectares of land which can be
immediately surrendered to the Undertaking. This may be done
within one week. We direct the Secretary, Land & Building
;
Department to send Department's representative/representatives
B
with the team for the purpose of identification of 76 Hectares of
land (as at present). Mrs. Suman Swarup shall file an additional
affidavit in this Court within three weeks from today indicating the
progress made in this matter."
Finally on September 8, 1995 this Court issued the following directions c
regarding the STP at Keshavpur :
"So far as the requirement of land for setting up STP in Keshopur
is concerned, this Court issued directions to the Delhi Administra-
tion on December 14, 1994 to initiate proceedings within two weeks D
thereafter and hand over the possession to the undertaking as early
as possible. We are constrained to say that till date the possession
of the whole of the land (106 hectares) has not been handed over
to the Undertaking. As mentioned above, formal possession of 75
hectares has been handed over to the Undertaking. Ms. Suman
Swarup is the Secretary Incharge of the Land & Building Depart- E
ment and also of the Public Works Department of the Delhi
Administration. We direct Ms. Suman Swarup to have the proceed-
ings such as the assessment of the value of the structures on the
spot etc. completely within four weeks from september 11, 1995.
Thereafter, she would make a formal request to the DDA to F
demolish the structures and hand over the possession so that the
DDA gets the land from the Delhi Administration on payment and
thereafter hand over the same to the Undertaking. Ms. Suman
Swarup shall file an affidavit indicating the compliance of our order
before October 16, 1995."
G
Various orders and directions issued by this Court from time to time
in Melita's case clearly show that the land in dispute - for Keshavpur STP
- is being acquired under the directions of this Court. Even the impugned
""" notificatiors under Section 4 read with 17 and Section 6 of the Act have
been issued under the directions of this Court. This Court repeatedly H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A indicated in the orders/drrections that there was urgency in taking over the
....
possession of the land, under acquisition, for the construction of STP at
Keshopur. The authorities were directed to take up the work of land
acquisition and construction of STP's on war footing. "Likely" in the
background of this Court's order passed from time to time for a time bound
programme for setting up the STPs means, for purposes of this case,
:.
B "certai.11.y" and "urgently".
Delhi - the capital of India - one of the world's great and historic
cities has come to be listed as third/fourth most polluted and grubbiest city
in the world. Apart from air- pollution, the waters of river Yamuna are
c wholly contaminated. It is a paradox that the Delhites - despite river
Yamuna being the primary source of water supply - are discharging almost
totality of untreated sewage into the river. There are eighteen drains
including Najafgarh drain which carry industrial and domestic waste in-
eluding sewage to river. Y amuna. Thirty eight smaller drains fall into
Najafgarh drain. The Najafgarh drain basin is the biggest polluter to river
D
Yamuna. Eight of the drains including Najafgarh drain are untrapped, four
fully trapped and remaining six are partially trapped. All these eighteen
drains, by and large, carry untreated industrial and domestic wastes and
fall into river Yamuna. The river Yamuna enters Delhi at Wazirabad in the
North and leaves at South after travelling. a distance of about twenty five
E kilometers. The water of river Yamuna till it enters Najafgarh is fit for
drinking after treatment, but the confluence of Najafgarh drain and seven-
teen other drains make the water heavily polluted. The water quality of
Yamuna, in Delhi stretch, is neither fit for drinking nor for bathing. The \,
Biochemcial Oxygen Demand (BOD) level in the river has gone so high
F that no flora or fauna can survive. It is of utmost importance and urgency
to complete the construction of the STP's in the city of Delhi. The project
is of great public importance. It is indeed of National importance. We take
judiciatnotice of the fact that there was'lltmost urgency to acquire the land
in dispute and as such the emergency provisions of the Act were rightly
invoked. We reject the first contention raised by the learned counsel.
G
So far as the second contention raised by Mr. Vashist, the same is
mentioned to be rejected.
,....
Whatever may be the user of the land under the Master plan and the
H Zonal Development Plan the State can always acquire the same for public
JAi NARAiN v. U.0.1. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 781
purpose in accordance with the law of the land. In any case the object and A
purpose of constructing the STP's is to protect the environment, control
pollution and in the process maintain and develop the agricultural green.
We see no force in any of the contentions raised by Mr. Vashisht.
-,
We, therefore, dismiss the Transfer cases (writ petitions) with costs. We
quantify the costs as Rs. 10,000 to be paid by each of the petitioners in B
these cases.
R.A. Petitions dismissed.
.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search