Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the State was justified in invoking the urgency power under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A, and whether the acquisition notifications were liable to be quashed.
Analysis: The extraordinary power under Section 17 to eliminate the opportunity of objection under Section 5A is not a routine power and can be used only where there is real and exceptional urgency. The Government must apply its mind to the need for dispensing with the inquiry, and the existence of urgency must have a reasonable nexus with the purpose of acquisition. A mere recital in the notification is not conclusive, and the surrounding circumstances, including delay before and after the notifications, can show that the purported urgency was not genuine. In the present case, the long lapse of time after the earlier attempt failed, coupled with the absence of any explanation for bypassing the statutory hearing, showed that the urgency clause was invoked impermissibly to avoid objections by the affected parties.
Conclusion: The invocation of Section 17(4) was not justified, the dispensing of Section 5A inquiry was invalid, and the notifications under Sections 4(1), 17 and 6 were properly quashed.