Supreme Court of India
M/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLVE. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 637
- Decided
- 12 May 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K MATHUR
Holding
The invocation of Section 17(4) read with Section 5-A was well‑warranted and not arbitrary, so the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh government acquired land for a "Transport Nagar" project to alleviate traffic congestion in the National Capital Region. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it invoked Section 17(4) read with Section 5-A, dispensing with the requirement that affected persons file objections under Section 5-A. M/s Sheikhar Hotels & Anr., who were not owners of the land, challenged the dispensation, alleging it was arbitrary and that they lacked standing. The Allahabad High Court upheld the notification, finding the urgency justified. The Supreme Court held that while Section 5-A is a valuable safeguard, it may be lawfully dispensed with when there is genuine urgency and public interest, as in this case, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The State's power to dispense with the objection provision of Section 5-A under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the dispensation of Section 5-A was arbitrary, for an ulterior purpose, or contrary to the petitioners' right to object.
- Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the acquisition despite not being owners of the land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(1), s. 17(4), s. 4(1), s. 5-A, s. 6
- National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
Subjects
Land acquisitionSection 5-ASection 17(4)Dispensation of objection rightUrgencyTraffic congestionPublic purposeStanding
Judgment
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 273
" ·• MIS. SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLVE. & ANR. A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3505 Of 2008)
MAY 12, 2008
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
,
., .}\
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 17 (4) rlw s. 5-A - Land
acquisition - Dispensing with requirement uls 5-A - Propriety
of- Held: In the facts of the case, invocation of s. 17 (4) r/w 5- c
A is warranted - Invocation of s. 5-A was not for ulterior pur-
pose or for arbitrary exercise of power
Land of the appellants was acquired under Land Ac-
quisition Act, 1894 dispensing with requirement of s. 5A
of the Act. Appellant filed writ petition. High Court held D
•.hat the urgency shown for invoking ~. 5A was justified
and there was no infirmity in Notifications issued for ac-
quiring the land. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: 1. The right to file objection under Section 5A
of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a valuable right and the
Governments are not given a free hand to dispense with
• Section 5-A. Section 5-A is only a safeguard against the
+ arbitrary exercise of the power by the State. But one F
should also not lose sight of the fact that invocation of
such a provision is also sometimes imperative as in or-
der to meet the urgency of the situation, it needs to be
invoked in public interest. Sometimes it may not be nee-
essary at all and the State functionaries may sometime,
G
out of over zealousness may invoke this provision which
-.; would seriously jeopardize the interest of the people.
Therefore, it depends upon case to case where in a given
situation Section 5-A has been correctly invoked and the
273 H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S. C.R.
A authorities were satisfied in an objective manner. [Para 4] ... '
[278-A-D]
2. In the present case invocation of Section 17 (4)
read with Section 5-A of the Act was well warranted and
there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by
B the Division Bench of the High Court. In order to keep •
pace with the speed of growth of Indian economy, invo-
)!.
cation of Section 5-A has become imperative. Traffic con- ""
gestion is a common experience of one and all and it is
very difficult to negotiate with the traffic congestion in
c Delhi an.d National Capital region. Therefore, in the present
situation, it cannot be said that the invocation of Section
5-A was for ulterior purpose or was arbitrary exercise of
the power. Since the Master Plan has already been pre-
pared and it has been approved by the Planning Board
D and they have sanctioned the amount for the develop-
me,...t of this Transport Nagar and widening of the National ,... -
High Way. Therefore, the proposal was approved by the
Board and it got the sanction from the National Capital
Regional Planning Board and ultimately the Government
E invoked the power under Section 17 (4) read with Section
5-A of the Act dispensing with the objections. [Paras 4 and
5] [280-D; 278-DG]
Rajasthan Housing Board and Ors. v. Shri Kishan and
Ors. 1993 (2) SC 84; Union of India and Ors. v. Praveen Gupta • ''
F and Ors. 1997 (9) sec 78 - relied on. "1
Union of India and Ors. v. Mukesh Hans 2004 (8) SCC
14 - distinguished.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3505
G of 2008
From the final Judgment dated 6/12/2006 of the High Court
--
I
'
Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 65687/2006
R.K. Khanna, Neeraj D. Gaur, Piyush Sharma, S.S. Nehra
H and Dr. l.B. Gaur for the Appellants.
M/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS & ANR. v. STATE OF 275
U.P. & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J]
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, A.A.G., Subodh Markandey, G. A
Sheshagiri Rao, Chitra Markandeya, Kamlendra Mishra, Aarohi
Bhalla and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave granted. B
; .l\ 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
6.12.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court whereby the High Court affirmed the notification dated
15.6.2006 issued under Section 4 (1) read with Section 17(1)
and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as C
'the Act') and the notification dated 19.10.2006 issued under
Section 6 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised before
the High Court on behalf of the respondent- Bulandshahr-Khurja
Development Authority, Bulandshahr that the writ petition was
--->- . not maintainable at the instance of the appellants and secondly D
it was contended that the writ petition was bereft of basic plead-
ings with regard to the challenge of dispensing with Section 5-
A of the Act.
3. The first question which was agitated before the High
Court was that dispensing with requirement of Section 5-A of E
the Act was arbitrary. The Division Bench of the High Court af-
ter referring to couple of decisions of this Court took the view
• that the urgency shown for invoking Section 5-A was justified as
... it was necessary to remove the traffic congestion. It was also
found that there was no co-relation between the argument and F
the pleadings contained in the writ petition. The High Court found
that there was no infirmity in the impugned notifications. Hence
this appeal on grant of special leave.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and pe- G
rused the record. Before we address to the main issue it will be
relevant to mention a few facts. Respondent No.3- Bulandshahr
Khurja Development Authority, Bhuandshahr ( hereinafter to be
referred to as the Development Authority) in its 251h Board meet-
ing held on 3.5.2002 decided to establish at the present site, H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A "Transport Nagar" abutting to the National Highway No.91. Un-
der the regional plan of the National Capital Regional Plan~ning
Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board) National High-
way No.91 is proposed to be made a four lane road. Out of the
plots described in the paper-book, plot Nos. 424, 424-M, 430,
B 443, 449M and 492 are not under acquisition under notification
dated 10.7.2006. Plot No.428-M was purchased by Mis. Allied "'- ~
Construction under sale deed dated 5.12.2003, plot No.429 was
purchased by Krishan Kumar son of Shankar Lal vide sale deed
dated 18.9.2003, plot No.442 was purchased by Smt. Asha
C under sale deed dated 18.9.2003. Plot No.430 was purchased
by Vipul Kaushik and Vinay Kaushik both minors. Plot No.449
was purchased by Chandrasekhar, Naresh Kumar and Kishan
Kumar under sale deed dated 18.9.2002 and plot No.450 was
purchased by the same vendees under two sale deeds dated
18.9.2003 and 12.2.2004. Same was the case with regard to _. _
0
Plot No.478. It was contended that all these plots were pur-
chased after the resolutio.1 was passed by the Board to set up
the Transport Nagar. None of the plots were recorded either in
the name of M/s.Sheikhar Hotels or Shri Chandrasekhar
Sharma, the appellants herein. Therefore, a preliminary objec-
E tion was raised on behalf of the respondents before the High
Court that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance
of the writ petitioner-appellants, who not being the owners of
the plot, cannot file the objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It
was also pointed out that the U P. Urban Planning and Devel- ..,
F opment Act, 1973 ( hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Devel-
opment Act') had come into force on 12.6.1973 with the object
of development of certain areas. A Master Plan was prepared
under the Development Act and after the same was published
and objections and suggestions were invited. Thereafter, the
G Master Plan was finalized. In the said Master Plan this area
was ear-marked for the Transport Nagar. At present the State
Road Transport Bus Terminal is situated in the thickly populated
area and there is really traffic congestio:i. The Master Plan con-
templated acquisition of total area of 501.58 hectares of land
H for the integrated plan for the purpose of alleviation of all the
MIS. SHEIKHAR HOTELS & ANR. v. STATE OF 277
> ~
U.P. & ORS. [A.K. MATHUR, J.]
traffic problems inter alia by constructing the Transport Nagar A
new Bus Stand at Delhi-Khureja and Shikarpur Roads and wid-
ening of the roads. For the purpose of establishing Transport
Nagar the National Capital Regional Planning Board (hereinaf-
ter to be referred to as the Board) sanctioned a loan of Rs.20.65
crores the Development Authority for construction. But because B
___,.... ~ of the litigation it could not proceed further and the Board is
incurring heavy interest. It was contended that compensation to
the tune of Rs.17.42 crores have already been spent. It was
also pointed out that the Parliament has enacted the National
Capital Region Planning Board Act (Act 11 of 1985) which came c
into force on 9.2.1985. The aim of this Act is for providing com-
mon plan for National Capital Region, which includes the Dis-
trict Bulandshahr of State of Uttar Pradesh. This Act of 1985
was passed by resolutions of the States of Haryana, Rajasthan
and Uttar Pradesh under Article 256 of the Constitution. There-
--"'"' fore, in order to have the development of the said region of the D
Capital Region a Corporate Body has beer, constituted with
the Union Minister for Urban Development as the Chairperson
and the Chief Ministers of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
and Lt. Governor of Delhi as its members. Therefore, for the
development of the National Capital Region such project has E
been undertaken and this Planning Body has already sanctioned
the aforesaid amount. In pursuance of this exercise the afore-
• said notification was issued dispensing with the requirement of
.. Section 5-A of the Act for filing of objection as there was an
urgent need of decongesting the traffic problem and to make F
the smooth traffic flow in the National Capital Region area also.
Therefore, Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. Learned
senior counsel for the appellants submitted that dispensation
of Section 5-A of the Act in the present situation was not proper
and there was no proper application of mind. In support of that G
"'~ learned senior counsel invited our attention to a decision of this
Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Mukesh Hans [(2004) 8 SCC
14]. As against this, learned senior counsel for the respondents
invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Rajasthan
Housing Bord & Ors. v Shri Kishan & Ors [(1993) 2 SCC 84] H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
..t ,
A and another decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Praveen Gupta
& Ors. [(1997) 9 SCC 78]. There is no gainsaying in the fact
that this right to file objection under Section 5-A is a valuable
right and the Governments are not given a free hand to dis-
pense with Section 5-A. Section 5-A is only a safeguard against
B the arbitrary exercise of the power by the State. But one should
also not loose sight bf the fact that invocation of such a provi- ,. ",,..__
sion is also sometimes imperative as in order to meet the ur-
gency of the situation it needs to be invoked in public interest. It
depends upon cases to case. Sometimes it may not be neces-
c sary at all and the State functionaries may sometime out of over
jealousness may invoke this provision which would seriously
jeopardize the interest of the people. Therefore, it depends upon
case to case where in a given situation Section 5-A has been
correctly invoked and the authorities were satisfied in an objec-
tive manner. In the present case, there is no two opinion that ~-
D
because of the globalization of economy Indian economy is pro-
gressir:g with fast speed, therefore in order to keep pace with
the speed, invocation of Section 5-A has become imperative.
Traffic congestion is a common experience of one and all and it
is very difficult to negotiate with the traffic congestion in Delhi
E and National Capital region. Therefore, in the present situation,
it cannot be said that the invocation of Section 5-A was for ulte-
rior purpose or was arbitrary exercise of the power. Since the
Master Plan has already been prepared and it has been ap-
proved by the Planning Board and they have sanctioned a sum ~
F of Rs.20.65 crores for the development of this Transport Nagar
and widening of the National High No.91 into four lanes. There-
fore, the proposal was approved by the Board and it got the
sanction from the National Capital Region Planning Board and
ultimately the Government invoked the power under Section
G 17(4) read with Section 5-A of the Act dispensing with the ob-
~-
jections. In the light of these facts it cannot be said that invoking
of power was in any way improper exercise. There is need for
decongestion of the traffic and it is really the dire need of the
hour and earliest it is implementBd, better for the people at large.
H In this connection learned senior counsel for the appellants in-
." M/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS & ANR. v. STATE OF
U.P. & ORS. [AK. MATHUR, J]
279
vited our attention to the decision of this Court in Union of India A
& Ors (supra) have held that Section 5-A is not an empty for-
mality but it is a substantive right which can be taken away only
for good and valid reason and within the limitations prescribed
under Section 17 (4) of the Act. But in the present case the no-
tification was struck down on the facts that no material was B
~ placed on record and secondly, it was also held that discontinu-
ance of festival for want of land and any hindrance in using the
land was not there. It was also pointed out that earlier an at-
tempt was made to acquire the land for the very same purpose
for holding such festival and it was allowed to lapse by efflux of c
time and consequently the Court found that there was no refer-
ence in the file to the need of invoking Section 17(4) and there-
fore, in a given situation. Their Lordships held that invocation of
Section 17(4) of the Act was vitiated by non-application of mind
by the authorities. Therefore, this case was decided on the ques-
D
tion of fact. As against this, learned senior counsel for the re-
spondents submitted that traffic congestion has been recog-
nized by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Praveen Gupta &
Ors. (supra) as urgent need. In this case, land was acquired in
order to shift the timber business from the walled city of Old
Delhi as it had become the source of traffic congestion. There- E
fore, it was required to be urgently shifted from the existing place
to relieve the congestion by acquiring the concerned land for
the public purpose, namely, for establishment of timber depot.
'+-
In that context, their Lordships held as follows:
F
" Since the acquisition is for shifting of timber business
from the walled city to the outskirts of the city, shifting itself
is for urgent purpose, viz., to relieve the traffic congestion
in the walled city. Under those circumstances, the exercise
of power under Section 17(4) cannot be said to be
G
unwarranted in this case. "
Similarly, in Rajasthan Hosing Board & Ors. (supra) the
question was with regard to acquisition of waste and arable
land for housing purpose. It was observed that Government's
satisfaction regarding, being subjective, when there is material H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
••
A upon which it could have been formed fairly, court would not
interfere nor would it examine the material as an appellate au-
thority to see existence of urgency. The proposed acquisition
for urban housing for weaker section and middle income group
of people by Housing Board where there is a great scarcity of
B house was held to be good purpose for invoking Section 17(4)
dispensing with the objection under Section 5-A. Therefore, such
invocation of Section 5-A was upheld by this Court.
5. Now, reverting to the facts of this case also as pointed
out above, this acquisition was made under the Master Plan
C prepa,·ed under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act
and the same got approval of the National Capital Region Plan-
ning Board and loan was sanctioned by the Board and out of
which Rs.17.42 crores have already been spent. In this given
case, we are of opinion that invocation of Section 17(4) read
with Section 5-A of the Act was well warranted and we see no
reason to interfere with the orrfer passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with
no order as to costs.
K.K.T. Appeal 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