HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

On the facts, there was no material demonstrating real urgency to justify invoking Section 17(4) and dispensing with the hearing under Section 5A; the authority did not act on adequate relevant material or show proper application of mind, therefore the notifications and proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were quashed and the property returned to the appellants; the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has since replaced the 1894 Act so no Section 5A inquiry can now be held.

Parties
Appellant: HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.; Respondent: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 1267 of 2012 / Judgment on Appeal (final Disposal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition allowed
Legal Topics
Section 17(4) Urgency Clause, Section 5 a Hearing of Objections, Judicial Review of Executive Satisfaction, Burden of Proof Under Section 106 Evidence Act, Replacement by Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Land Acquisition Property Law Administrative Law Section 17(4) Urgency Clause Section 5 a Hearing of Objections Judicial Review of Executive Satisfaction Burden of Proof Under Section 106 Evidence Act Replacement by Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HAMID ALI KHAN (D) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

Appellant

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 1267 of 2012 / Judgment on Appeal (final Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be validly invoked to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A
  2. 2 Whether there existed real urgency justifying immediate acquisition and dispensing with hearing under Section 5A
  3. 3 What burden of proof applies when a writ applicant challenges invocation of Section 17(4) and the material the State must place before court

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, there was no material demonstrating real urgency to justify invoking Section 17(4) and dispensing with the hearing under Section 5A; the authority did not act on adequate relevant material or show proper application of mind, therefore the notifications and proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were quashed and the property returned to the appellants; the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has since replaced the 1894 Act so no Section 5A inquiry can now be held.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petition allowed

Orders

  • Impugned notifications and proceedings quashed
  • Property returned to the appellants