Mahendra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed for quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Both the writ petitions seek quashing of the same notifications and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order.

The State Government issued a notification dated 20.5.1996 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act] for acquiring certain land in village Bhiwai, Pargana Shikohabad, district Firozabad for the purpose of construction of a market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a planned development scheme. This was followed by another notification dated 27.12.1997 u/s 6 of the Act. There is a recital in the notification u/s 4 that the Governor, being of the opinion that provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act are applicable inasmuch as the land was urgently lequired for construction of market-yard of Krlshi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sirsaganj in district Firozabad under a planned development scheme, and. that in view of the pressing urgency, it was necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. A direction was issued under Subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act shall not apply. The notification u/s 6 contained a direction to the Collector of Firozabad under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 to take possession of the land on expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 9 though no award u/s 11 had been made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the State Government had acted illegally in exercising powers u/s 17(4) and in dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act. Learned counsel has also urged that there was no material before the State Government to show that it was a case of extreme urgency wherein provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act may be applicable. It is urged that the construction of a market-yard of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sirsaganj, was not such a purpose which could be described as extremely urgent where the State Government could not wait for an enquiry as contemplated by Section 5A of the Act.

It is true that a direction u/s 17(4) of the Act to the effect that provisions of Section 5A shall not apply has a serious consequence upon the persons interested in the land inasmuch as they are deprived of an opportunity of filing objections to the acquisition of their land u/s 5A of the Act. But the decision of the State Government, that the case is one of urgency can be challenged only on limited grounds. In Raja Anand Brahma Shah Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the Supreme Court held as follows in paragraph 8 of the report :

"It is true that the opinion of the State Government which is a condition for the exercise of power u/s 17(4) of the Act is subjective and a Court cannot normally enquire whether there were sufficients grounds or justification of the opinion formed by the State Government u/s 17(4)..........."

This was reiterated in a later decision by the Supreme Court in Narayan Govind Gavate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and in paragraph 10, it was observed as follows :

"It is true that, in such cases the formation of opinion is a subjective matter, as held by this Court repeatedly with regard to the situations in which administrative authorities have formed certain opinions before taking actions, they are empowered to take. Nevertheless, that opinion has to be based on some relevant materials in order to pass test which Courts do impose.... once, the Court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material whatever meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the Courts should not and will not interfere......"

It is therefore, well-settled that the question of urgency is a matter for subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government and it is not open to the Courts to examine the propriety or correctness of the satisfaction on an objective consideration of facts. The opinion of the Government can be challenged in a court of law only if it can be shown that the Government never applied its mind to the matter or that the action of the Government is mala fide.

The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the mind of the authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings u/s 5A of the Act should be eliminated and it is not just the existence of urgency, but the need to dispense with the enquiry u/s 5A which has to be considered. The learned counsel placed reliance on the observations of Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 of Narayan Govind Gavate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,

The observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the report in Narayan Govind Gavate and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, have been explained by two Division Benches of our High Court in Smt. Kailashwati Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and Technical Associates v. State of U. P.. 1984 All LJ 1093. In Warain''s case (supra), neither in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of acquiring body nor in the notification issued, there was any material showing that the State Government had applied its mind to the question that there existed urgency which warranted elimination of enquiry contemplated by Section 5A of the Act, On the contrary, the Government took their stand on the plea of non-justiciability of the satisfaction of the Government. It was also explained that the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court was only illustrative and not exhaustive of the situation in which the urgency clause could be invoked.

There are several decisions of our Court, where after noticing the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Narain''s case (supra), it was held that the question of urgency is a matter for the subjective satisfaction of the Government and it is not open to the Court to examine the propriety and the correctness of the satisfaction on objective appraisal of facts. The opinion can be challenged in a court of law only if it can be shown that the Government never applied its mind to the matter or Us action was mala fide. Reference in this connection may be made to Raj Ball v. State of U. P. AIR 1983 All 78; Trilochan v. State 1985 All LJ 718 ; Mohd. Hanif v. State 1984 AWC 46 : 1985 All LJ 1405 : Gayatri Nagar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State. 1985 All LJ 1182 : Kunwar Lal v. State. 1989 All LJ 570 and Satbir Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others,

In the present writ petition, no allegation of mala fide has been made against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any such contention that the acquisition of the petitioner''s land was mala fide.

In the counter-affidavit filed by Tehsildar, Shikohabad, it is averred that construction of the market-yard is a crying need of the hour as the old market-yard had reached saturation point. The conditions prevailing there were very unhygienic. The old market-yard had lost its ''utility and was not at all conducive for conducting the wholesale business. The Mandi Samiti was ready to construct a new market-yard for the convenience of agriculturists and also the traders. Almost similar assertion has been made in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Anil Kumar Gaur. Sachiv (Secretary) of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, SirsaganJ.

It is, therefore, clear that there was sufficient material before the State Government on the basis of which it could come to a conclusion that the case was one of urgency and directions should be made under Subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act.

The question whether dispensation of enquiry u/s 5A of the Act on the ground of urgency in acquisition of land for construction of market-yard of a Mandi Samiti was justified or not has been considered by several decisions of this Court. In Satyendra Prasad v. State of U. P.. ]1987 IJ AWC 382 : 1987 ALJ 965 it has been held that the proposed construction of market and market-yard by the Mandi Samiti is a step forward to ameliorate the conditions of producers with representation to them in the Mandi Samiti for the fair settlement of disputes relating to their transactions. It is a long-felt need which is said to have been included in the planned development scheme. It was thus concluded that it cannot be said that there is no urgency in the matter of acquiring the land in question. In Smt. Kailashwati Vs. State of U.P. and Another, the land was acquired for the purpose of rqarket-yard to be constructed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Meerul and the enquiry u/s 5A was dispensed with. The challenge to the acquisition on the ground that the case was not such wherein the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act may be applicable and the exercise of power u/s 17(4) and in dispensing with an enquiry u/s 5A of the Act was repelled on the ground that there was immediate urgency as there was acute scarcity of godown and warehouses where foodgrains purchased by the Government had to be stocked. In Hari Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, acquisition was made for a market-yard and in Union of India and others Vs. Praveen Gupta and others, acquisilion was made for a timber-yard and in both these cases the establishment of markets had been treated as one of grave urgency to remove congestion and dispensing with enquiry u/s 5A of the Act were upheld. The matter has been considered again in Bhagat Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and it has been held that establishment of a market-yard is not merely one of mere urgency but one which makes it necessary to dispense with an enquiry u/s 5A. Therefore, in view of this long catena of decisions, both of our High Court and of the Apex Court, the challenge made to the notifications on the ground of dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A of the Act has to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has next contended that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act issued on 20.5.1996 and the notification u/s 6 was published in the gazette on 27.12.1997, and as the said declaration had been made after expiry of one year from the dale of publication of notification u/s 4(1), the same was illegal in view of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 6 lays down that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification u/s 4. Subsection (1). published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act lays down that whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that a land in any locality is needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers having circulation in that locality and the Collector shall also cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in that locality. The dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice will be the date of publication of the notification. It is averred in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit of Tehsildar. Shikohabad, that notification dated 20.5.1996 u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in ''Dainik Jagran'' and ''Suhag Times'' newspapers on 31.8.1996 and publication was also made through beat of drums (Munadi) on 28.12.1996. The report of the concerned Tehsildar that publication by beat of drums (Munadi) was done on the spot on 28.12.1996 has been filed as C-A-I to the counter-affidavit. This is also supported with the writing of the concerned employee who performed the aforesaid act and it contains signature of large number of persons including that of a member of Block Development Committee. Though in the rejoinder-affidavit, it is denied that any publication was made by beat of drums in the village, but we find no reason to discard the report of the Tehsildar. No reason is forlhcoming to show that report of the Tehsildar and the writing of the concerned employee of the Tehsll. who gave notice by beat of drums is false. Since notice by beat of drums was given on 28.12.1996, it will be deemed to be the date of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act. The declaration u/s 6 having been made on 27.12.1997, the same was within a period of one year. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance and is liable to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly urged that though the declaration u/s 6 had been made on 27.12.1997 but no award had been made within the period of two years and. therefore, the proceedings for acquisition of land lapsed in view of Section 11A of the Act. It may be mentioned at the very outset that there is no clear pleading to the effect that the award has not been made within a period of two years from the date of making of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act. Similarly, no such specific ground has been taken nor there is any reference to Section 11A of the Act. There is a vague averment in paragraph 11 of the writ petition to the effect that till date, there has been no proceedings for payment of compensation payable to the petitioners which proves that there does not exist any urgency. Similarly, there is no clear averment that the petitioners are still in possession of the acquired land. It is well-settled that where urgency provision of Section 17 of the Act has been invoked and possession has been taken, the acquired land vests in the State free from all encumbrances and the provisions of Section 11A of the Act would not apply. See Satendra Prasad Jain and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Awadh Bihari and Other Vs. State of Bihar and others, and Allahabad Development Authority Vs. Nasiruzzaman and Others, In this view of the matter, we do not find substance in the contention raised on the basis of Section 11A of the Act.

No other point was urged. The writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed.