1995 (11) TMI 438 - SC - Indian Laws

Court validates land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) emphasizing no specific construction scheme needed. Exclusion confirmed based on withdrawal.

The Court upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that a specific scheme for construction was ... - Issues Involved: The issues involved in this case include the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the withdrawal of earlier notifications, the entitlement of respondents for exclusion, the interpretation of guidelines issued by the Government, the public purpose of planned development, and the exclusion of land for personal residential purposes.Validity of Notification under Section 4(1): The appeal challenged the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the grounds of vagueness and invalidity due to the absence of a specific scheme for construction of houses. The High Court initially quashed the notification, but the Supreme Court upheld the decision in a previous case. The Court reiterated that the scheme did not need to be fully formulated before the notification, thus the notification was not vague.Withdrawal of Earlier Notifications and Exclusion Entitlement: The Government withdrew earlier notifications, leading to various writ petitions. The appellants argued that the foundation for the writ petition was no longer valid after the withdrawal. However, the respondents claimed entitlement to exclusion based on the withdrawal of notifications for other lands. The Court found that the withdrawal of notifications for public purposes like a bus stand and fruit market did not affect the planned development scheme, thus upholding the exclusion.Interpretation of Government Guidelines and Public Purpose: The Court clarified that guidelines issued by the Government were administrative instructions and not statutory notifications conferring rights for exclusion. The Government was justified in withdrawing guidelines misused for seeking exclusion, as it had the power to issue and withdraw them. The public purpose of planned development for residential purposes was emphasized, with the withdrawal of land for other public purposes not affecting the notification under Section 4(1).Exclusion of Land for Personal Residential Purposes: Considering the large number of families requiring personal accommodation, the Court directed the exclusion of 1 acre 50 cents of land for the respondents to construct their own residential houses. The identified land was to be released from acquisition, allowing for personal residence construction. This exclusion was deemed reasonable and not to be treated as a precedent, emphasizing its specific nature for personal residential use.In conclusion, the Court upheld the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, except for the directed exclusion for personal residential purposes. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no costs incurred.