DEV SHARAN & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DEV SHARAN & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

The State Government was not justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(4) to dispense with the Section 5A inquiry; there was no real urgency as evidenced by the 11 month gap between notifications. The right to object under Section 5A is important and must not be denied except in genuine emergencies, and must be interpreted consistently with constitutional rights. Therefore, the acquisition notifications are quashed for appellants, and their possession cannot be interfered with except according to law.

Parties
Appellant: Dev Sharan & Ors.; Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed; acquisition notifications quashed for appellants' land
Legal Topics
Land Acquisition—urgency Powers, Right to Object—section 5 a, Public Purpose Interpretation, Judicial Review—property Rights
Land Acquisition Constitutional Law Land Acquisition—urgency Powers Right to Object—section 5 a Public Purpose Interpretation Judicial Review—property Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dev Sharan & Ors.

Appellant

State of U.P. & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State was justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and denying a Section 5A inquiry for land acquisition to construct a district jail
  2. 2 Whether the acquisition of agricultural land for the jail was justified when alternative unfertile lands were available

Ratio Decidendi

The State Government was not justified in invoking urgency provisions under Section 17(4) to dispense with the Section 5A inquiry; there was no real urgency as evidenced by the 11 month gap between notifications. The right to object under Section 5A is important and must not be denied except in genuine emergencies, and must be interpreted consistently with constitutional rights. Therefore, the acquisition notifications are quashed for appellants, and their possession cannot be interfered with except according to law.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; acquisition notifications quashed for appellants' land

Orders

  • Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 quashed insofar as they relate to appellants
  • State cannot interfere with appellants' possession except in accordance with law