1995 (12) TMI 421 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Land Acquisition Notification Upheld, State's Power for Dalit Housing Emphasized

The court upheld the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the exercise of power under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the notification u/s 4(1) and exercise of power u/s 17(1) read with Section 17(4) dispensing with the inquiry u/s 5-A.2. Urgency and necessity to dispense with the inquiry u/s 5-A.3. Alleged violation of Article 21 of the Constitution due to deprivation of livelihood.Summary:Validity of the Notification u/s 4(1) and Exercise of Power u/s 17(1) read with Section 17(4) Dispensing with the Inquiry u/s 5-A:The appellants challenged the notification under Section 4(1) and the exercise of power under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which dispensed with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The court found that the State Government is statutorily empowered to exercise power u/s 17(4) when it forms an opinion of urgency to take immediate possession for building houses for Dalits. The court emphasized that the opinion of urgency formed by the Government is a subjective conclusion based on the material before it and is entitled to great weight unless vitiated by mala fides or colorable exercise of power.Urgency and Necessity to Dispense with the Inquiry u/s 5-A:The court held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution, encompassing the right to residence and settlement. The State's duty to provide housing to weaker sections, including Dalits, is a constitutional mandate. The court referred to various precedents, including Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra, to support the view that dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A should be exceptional and justified by urgency. The delay by officials does not nullify the urgency if the need for housing persists.Alleged Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution Due to Deprivation of Livelihood:The appellants contended that the acquisition deprived them of their only source of livelihood, violating Article 21. The court rejected this argument, stating that the State's exercise of eminent domain for public purpose, such as providing housing, is valid. Compensation, solatium, and interest provided under Sections 23 and 28 of the Act adequately address the deprivation of property. Therefore, the plea of deprivation of livelihood under Article 21 was deemed unsustainable.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no illegality in the notification warranting interference. The urgency to provide housing for Dalits justified the exercise of power under Section 17(4) and dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The appeal was dismissed without costs.