Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition for Lack of Urgency: Hamid Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. (23 November 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 23 November 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can a government authority bypass the mandatory hearing process for land acquisition simply by citing “urgency”? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a land acquisition was challenged for not following due process. The core issue revolved around whether the authorities were justified in invoking the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby depriving the landowners of their right to be heard. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over land acquisition in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants, Hamid Ali Khan and another, challenged notifications issued by the state government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These notifications aimed to acquire their land for a residential and commercial scheme. Initially, the appellants’ land was not included in the acquisition plan. However, it was later added, citing the need for a “clean environment” and the alleged illegal construction of shops by the appellants. The appellants argued that their land was not in the center of the scheme and that they were running a cattle market on the land.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition challenging letters from the Collector and the Vice Chairman of the Authority, which was later withdrawn. Subsequently, they challenged the new notifications issued under Sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that sufficient development work had been done and that the urgency was justified. The High Court also noted that the land was necessary for proper implementation of the scheme and that running a cattle market in between residential area was not appropriate.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows the government to bypass the inquiry under Section 5A in cases of urgency. Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides a crucial right to landowners to raise objections against the proposed acquisition. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this right is valuable and should not be taken away lightly. The relevant sections are:

• Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section empowers the government to issue a notification for the acquisition of land for public purposes.
• Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section provides the right to any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4(1) to file objections to the acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section empowers the government to declare that the land is required for a public purpose after considering the objections filed under Section 5A, if any.
• Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows the government to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A in cases of urgency. It states that “In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1).“

The court also considered the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that their land was not in the middle of the scheme area, as claimed by the authorities, but at one end, facing the G.T. Road. They contended that a boundary wall could separate their land from the residential area without disturbing the scheme.
• They asserted that the urgency clause was invoked without any genuine need. The initial acquisition did not include their land, and the subsequent acquisition was a mala fide attempt to grab more land.
• The appellants emphasized that the cattle market on their land was their only source of income.
• They relied on the judgments in Om Prakash And Another v. State OF U.P. And Others, Anand Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, and Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRS. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, to argue that the urgency clause was not justified.
• The appellants contended that the authorities failed to apply their mind to the relevant facts and circumstances before dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that there was a public need for the land to develop a compact colony. They claimed that the land was essential for the proper implementation of the scheme.
• They contended that the jurisdiction of the writ court to judicially review the decision taken under Section 17 to dispense with Section 5A was limited, relying on the subjective satisfaction of the authority.
• The respondents produced additional documents to justify the dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A, stating that the land was required for widening the road, school, park, health care center and creation of residential plots.
• They cited the judgments in State of U.P. V. Smt. Pista Devi and others and Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. And Another, to argue that housing schemes justify the invocation of the urgency clause.
• The respondents contended that the appellants would not be prejudiced as they did not raise any objections that they would have advanced during a hearing under Section 5A.
• They argued that the land was lying vacant and the cattle fair was contrary to public interest and environment.
• The respondents emphasized the need to complete the project in a time-bound manner and that the land was required under the supplementary plan.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether there were relevant materials before the Government to invoke power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
2. Whether the Government applied its mind to the relevant facts before dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered a range of authorities to determine the validity of invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These authorities were categorized by the legal points they addressed.

On the Interpretation of Section 17(4):

• Narayan Govind Gavate and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(1977) 1 SCC 133]: This case established that while the formation of an opinion under Section 17(4) is subjective, it must be based on relevant materials. The Court emphasized that the mind of the authority must be applied to the question of whether there is a need to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A.
• State of U.P. V. Smt. Pista Devi and others [(1986) 4 SCC 251]: This case held that providing housing accommodation is a matter of national urgency and that in such cases, it is not necessary to hold an inquiry under Section 5A.
• Rajasthan Housing Board and Others v. Shri Kishan and Others [(1993) 2 SCC 84]: This case reiterated that the satisfaction under Section 17(4) is subjective, and if there is material upon which the government could have formed the said satisfaction fairly, the Court would not interfere.
• Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. And Another [(1996) 2 SCC 549]: This case upheld the exercise of power under Section 17(4) for providing housing for the poor, emphasizing that the opinion of urgency is a subjective conclusion based on the material before it.

On the Importance of Section 5A Inquiry:

• Om Prakash And Another v. State OF U.P. And Others [(1998) 6 SCC 1]: This case held that the decision in Pista Devi must be confined to its specific facts and cannot lay down a proposition contrary to the earlier judgment in Gavate.
• Anand Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others [(2010) 11 SCC 242]: This case emphasized that Section 5A confers a valuable right to an individual and that the power under Section 17(4) should not be routinely invoked.
• Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRS. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [(2011) 5 SCC 553]: This case provided a detailed analysis of the principles governing land acquisition, emphasizing that the urgency provisions should only be invoked in cases of real urgency.

Other Relevant Authorities:

• State OF Haryana v. Eros City Developers Private Limited and Others [(2016) 12 SCC 265]: This case highlighted that public interest must receive primacy when it conflicts with private interest.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the impugned notifications and proceedings. The Court ordered the property to be returned to the appellants, emphasizing that the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(4) was unjustified.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Narayan Govind Gavate and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, stating that the authority must apply its mind to the question of whether there is a need to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A.
• The Court distinguished State of U.P. V. Smt. Pista Devi and others and Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. And Another, stating that those cases involved housing for the poor, which was a matter of national urgency.
• The Court referred to Rajasthan Housing Board and Others v. Shri Kishan and Others to highlight that the subjective satisfaction must be based on relevant material.
• The Court relied on Om Prakash And Another v. State OF U.P. And Others, Anand Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others, and Radhy Shyam (dead) through LRS. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others to emphasize the importance of Section 5A and the need for circumspection when invoking Section 17(4).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of genuine urgency and the failure of the authorities to properly apply their minds to the relevant facts. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is discretionary and must be exercised with due care. The Court noted that the reasons given for invoking the urgency clause were contradictory and not compelling. The Court also highlighted the delay in issuing the Section 6 declaration and the fact that the land was initially excluded from acquisition. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the appellants were deprived of their valuable right to be heard under Section 5A.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The power to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be used sparingly and only in cases of real urgency.
• The authorities must apply their minds to the relevant facts and circumstances before invoking the urgency clause.
• The reasons for invoking the urgency clause must be genuine and not contradictory.
• The right to be heard under Section 5A is a valuable right that should not be taken away lightly.
• The courts have the power to judicially review the decision to invoke the urgency clause to ensure that the power was not exercised arbitrarily.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the property be returned back to the appellants. This was without prejudice to the rights/powers available to the respondents under law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not justified if there is no real urgency and if the authorities do not apply their minds to the relevant facts. The judgment reinforces the importance of the right to be heard under Section 5A and clarifies that the power to dispense with this inquiry should be used sparingly. This case also clarifies that the subjective satisfaction of the authorities must be based on relevant material and that the courts have the power to review such decisions. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the need for a strict compliance of the law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamid Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. serves as a critical reminder that the urgency clause in land acquisition laws cannot be used as a tool to bypass due process. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that the authorities act fairly and reasonably, especially when depriving citizens of their property. This case reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in the land acquisition process.