Land Acquisition Act 1894 -Section 17(4) Notification Liable To Be Quashed If State Fails To Show Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Urgency
Case: Hamid Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram: Justice KM Joseph, Justice S Ravindra Bhat
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.1267 Of 2012
Court Observation: “Section 5A of the Act guarantees a right to the person interested in the property which was the only statutory safeguard to stave off of a compulsory acquisition of his property. The power under Section 17 (4) is discretionary. Being a discretion it must be exercised with due care. It is true that if there is relevant material however meagre it may be and the authority has without being guided by extraneous considerations applied his mind and taken a decision, then the court would adopt a hands-off approach. In the ultimate analysis as with any other decision a balancing of conflicting interests is inevitable. The authorities must remain alive and alert to the precious right created in favour of the citizens which is not meant to be a mere empty ritual”
“When a challenge is made to the invocation of power under Section 17(4) the writ applicant cannot succeed on bare and bald assertions. The facts which are specifically within the exclusive knowledge of the state must be laid before the court on the basis of the principle in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Existence of the exceptional circumstances justifying invoking of Section 17(4) must be established in the wake of a challenge.”
“The power under Section 17(4) is discretionary. Being a discretion it must be exercised with due care. It is true that if there is relevant material however meagre it may be and the authority has without being guided by extraneous considerations applied his mind and taken a decision, then the court would adopt a hands-off approach…The authorities must remain alive and alert to the precious right created in favour of the citizens which is not meant to be a mere empty ritual.”
“..on an appreciation of the evidence made available by all the parties it is open to the court to conclude that no occasion arose for resorting to the power under Section 17(4) which indeed must be read as an exception to the general rule that the acquisition of property is made after affording an opportunity the person adversely affected to demonstrate that the acquisition was unjustified.”
“We are at a loss as to what was the material which was relevant to a decision under section 17(4) of the Act”
[doc id=12111]
Previous Posts
Arbitrator Cannot Modify Award On An Application Under Section 33 Arbitration Act: Supreme Court
Irregularity In Order Taking Cognizance Will Not Vitiate Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court
Sale Deed Executed Without Payment Of Price Is Void; Has No Legal Effect: Supreme Court
Consumer Commission Should Issue Bailable Warrant Only If Party Is Not Represented At All Through Counsel Or Representative: Supreme Court Download Judgement
Keywords
Land Acquisition Act, Section 17(4), Exceptional Circumstances
