1986 (9) TMI 416 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Validates Land Acquisition for Housing in Meerut, Emphasizes Urgency

State Of U.P. Etc Versus Smt. Pista Devi & Ors.

The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's decision to invoke sections 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for housing in Meerut, ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of invoking section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Delay between notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6.3. Acquisition of land with existing structures.4. Provision of relief to expropriated persons.Summary:1. Validity of invoking section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:The Supreme Court upheld the State Government's decision to invoke section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of land for housing in Meerut. The Court noted that the urgency for housing was well-documented through certificates and letters from the Collector and the Secretary of the Meerut Development Authority. The Court emphasized that providing housing accommodation is a matter of national urgency and justified the invocation of section 17(1) and (4) to expedite the process.2. Delay between notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6:The High Court had quashed the acquisition on the ground of a nearly one-year delay between the notification u/s 4 and the declaration u/s 6, suggesting that the urgency was not genuine. The Supreme Court, however, found that the delay was due to administrative errors and not due to a lack of urgency. The Court held that the delay did not vitiate the State Government's decision to dispense with the inquiry u/s 5-A, given the urgent need for housing.3. Acquisition of land with existing structures:The respondents contended that some parts of the acquired land had buildings, making the use of section 17(1) unjustified. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the general nature of the land was arable and the presence of a few structures did not invalidate the acquisition. The Court also referred to section 17(1-A) of the Act, which allows the acquisition of land with structures for planned development, reinforcing the legality of the acquisition.4. Provision of relief to expropriated persons:The respondents argued that the acquisition would prejudice landowners without houses or shops. The Supreme Court suggested that the Meerut Development Authority should consider providing house or shop sites to the expropriated persons on reasonable terms, following the principle in section 21(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, although it was not directly applicable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, upheld the validity of the acquisition process, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.