Land acquisition objections procedure cannot be excluded by implication where accelerated possession applies under a different provision.

Acquisition of land for the Board under the Land Acquisition Act was not invalid merely because the special scheme procedure in the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was not followed, since that Act governed acquisitions made by the Board for its own purposes, not a Government acquisition for a public purpose connected with the scheme. By contrast, the State could not dispense with the section 5-A objections procedure by invoking section 17(4) where the land fell under section 17(1-A), because exclusion of objections must be expressly authorised and cannot be implied from the accelerated-possession provisions. The section 6 declaration was therefore invalid to that extent, and the notifications were struck down insofar as they excluded section 5-A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acquisition of land for the Board had to proceed under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, No. VI of 1945, so that non-compliance with its scheme provisions rendered the acquisition invalid; (ii) Whether the State Government could dispense with the objections procedure under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking section 17(4), where the land was covered by section 17(1-A).

Issue (i): Whether acquisition of land for the Board had to proceed under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, No. VI of 1945, so that non-compliance with its scheme provisions rendered the acquisition invalid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that the special procedure in chapter VII of the Kanpur Act applied when the Board itself acquired land for its own purposes under section 71, in which event section 114 supplied the modification of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition in question, however, was by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose, though connected with the Board's scheme. In such a case, the Kanpur Act did not govern the acquisition proceedings, and the absence of steps under chapter VII did not invalidate the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Conclusion: This contention failed and the acquisition was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government could dispense with the objections procedure under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by invoking section 17(4), where the land was covered by section 17(1-A).

Analysis: Section 5-A confers a substantial right of objection before a declaration under section 6 is made, and its exclusion is permissible only where the statute clearly authorises it. Section 17(4) was tied to land to which section 17(1) or section 17(2) applied, namely waste or arable land. The U.P. amendment inserting section 17(1-A) extended accelerated possession to other than waste or arable land for planned development, but it did not amend section 17(4) or expressly extend the exclusion of section 5-A to that new category. The two provisions were independent, and the power to exclude objections could not be implied merely because section 17(1) was referred to in section 17(1-A).

Conclusion: The Government had no power to dispense with section 5-A in a case falling under section 17(1-A), and the declaration under section 6 was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded. The notifications were struck down to the extent that they excluded section 5-A and proceeded under section 6 without the statutory objections procedure, while the remainder of the preliminary notification was left intact for further lawful action.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to exclude a hearing or objections procedure in land acquisition must be expressly conferred and cannot be extended by implication from a provision dealing with accelerated possession under a different sub-section.

---