Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2010 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1092 - SUPREME COURTacquisition proceedings - right to development - challenging the notification u/s 4 and 6 - enquiry u/s 5A - challenge opposing the acquisition related to the concept of public purpose - It is mainly the complaint of the appellants that they had purchased the land long time back and their names were duly mutated in the Revenue records and they had thereafter raised constructions over the land in question, and in those constructions, they were running their business like shops, cold-storage etc. The appellants also complained that the area which was proposed to be cleared for the interchange, if acquired, the appellants would suffer immensely. The appellants very seriously challenged the application of urgency u/s 17(1) and 17(4) to these acquisitions, thereby depriving the appellants of an opportunity to be heard u/s 5A. HELD THAT:- We are completely convinced that there was necessity in this Project considering the various reasons like enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the Project had lingered already from 2001 till 2008. The law on this subject was thoroughly discussed in Tika Ram and Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. etc[2009 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT], to which one of us (V.S. Sirpurkar) was a party. In that decision also, we had reiterated that the satisfaction required on the part of Executive in dispensing with the enquiry u/s 5A is a matter subject to satisfaction and can be assailed only on the ground that there was no sufficient material to dispense with the enquiry or that the order suffered from malice. It was also found that there was no charge of malafide levelled against the exercise of power and there was material available in support of the satisfaction on the part of the Executive justifying the invocation of the provisions of Section 17. The position is no different in the present case. The High Court in the present matter went a step ahead and examined the bulky original record itself to find that there was full material available. In view of the law laid down in the judgment on this issue i.e. Tika Ram and Ors. etc. etc. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2009 (9) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT], we are of the clear opinion that the challenge by the appellants on the ground that there was no urgency and, therefore, the enquiry u/s 5-A should not have been dispensed with, cannot be accepted. We hold accordingly. There is no merit in the appeals. Hence, dismissed.
|