PETITIONER: MOHD. ALI & ORS. ETC.ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/1996 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, FAIZAN UDDIN ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court made on May
20, 1976 in W.P. Nos. 792/75 and 5032/75 and batch. The
appellant challenged, along with yet other batch, the
validity of the notification published under Section 4(1) on
October 12, 1974 and declaration under Section 6 dated
September 28, 1974 contending that the declaration under
Section 6 could not be made until the notification under
Section 4(1) was published in accordance with law.
Therefore, the notification is bad in law. The High Court
noted, as a fact, that the notification under Section 4(1)
and the declaration under Section 6 were simultaneously
published on October 12, 1974. There is no bar no the
Government making the order that before publication of
Section 4(1) declaration under Section 6 should also be
published. It is not in dispute that the State had in
exercise of its power of eminent domain under Section 17 [4]
of the Act, dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A. It
is settled law that simultaneous publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under
Section 6 was valid in law prior to the coming into force of
the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It is also seen that in
relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh, Land Acquisition
[Amendment] Act 5 of 1991 has been brought into force w.e.f.
February 17, 1991 and, therefore, in relation to the State
of U.P. it is now settled law that when the State exercises
the power of eminent domain and in exercise of the power
under Section 17(4) dispensing with the enquiry under
Section 5-A to acquire the land under Section 4(1) the State
is entitled to have the notification under Section 4(1) and
the declaration under Section 6 simultaneously published so
as to take further steps as required under Section 9 of the
Act, i.e., issuance of the notice and taking possession
thereof under Section 17(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the
land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
In view of the urgency, the Government exercised power of
eminent domain and dispensed with the enquiry under Section
5-A; we do not find any illegality in the action taken by
the respondents in having the notification under Section
4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 simultaneously
published. It is then sought to be contended that the
appellant has a small extent of the land and other lands
have been excluded from acquisition and, therefore, it is
arbitrary exercise of power. He also seeks to contend the
procedural infirmities, but unfortunately none of the
contentions have been pressed before the High Court, though
might have been raised in writ petition. Under those
circumstances, we cannot permit the appellants to argue
these points afresh which are purely questions of fact to be
verified on the basis of the material as the State had no
opportunity to deal with them.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed but, in the
circumstances, without costs. The Land Acquisition Officer
is directed to pass the awards within a period of six months
from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.
