# Ltd v. State of West Bengal and another

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 178
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-03-05
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27317 of 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ltd-v-state-of-west-bengal-and-another-40317
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act-Sections 11-A and
17-Applicability-By
invoking
urgency
clause under S. 17(1) government takes
possession of land- prior to making of
award under S. 11 of L.A. Act- Thus
owner is divested of land, vested with
government- Hence s. 11-A, held, has no
application to cases of acquisition under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Kaloo Ram V. State of U.P. and others 179
S. 17 of Land Acquisition Act-where can
not take back the possession.

Held: Para 15

In Satendra Prasad Jain and others Vs.
State of U.P. AIR 1993 SC 2517 the
Supreme Court observed that when
Section 17 (1) is applied by invoking the
urgency clause, the Government takes
possession of the land prior to the
making of the award under Section 11,
and thereupon the owner is divested of
the land, which is vested in the
Government. Hence Section 11A has no
application to cases of acquisition under
Section 17 because the land has already
vested in the Government and there is no
provision in the Act by which the land
vested
in
the
Government
can
be
reverted to the owner, vide Ram Gopal
Varshney Vs. State of U.P. 2004(1) AWC

## Text

178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
no.1 and Sri Manish Goyal learned
counsel appearing for respondents no.2
and 3.

3. Sri A.P. Sahi learned counsel for
the petitioner has urged that without
issuing any show cause notice or giving
opportunity of hearing, the petitioner
could not be blacklisted. On the other
hand Sri Manish Goyal learned counsel
appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 has
urged that post decisional hearing would
be given to the petitioner and the
impugned order is liable to be upheld.

4. The question involved in this
petition
is
as
to
whether
before
blacklisting a contractor principles of
natural justice have to be complied with
and opportunity of hearing has to be given
to him or not. This question has been
settled by the apex court. It has been held
in M/s. Erusian Equipment and Chemicals
Ltd. v. State of West Bengal and another
AIR 1975 SC 266, Raghunath Thakur v.
State of Bihar and others AIR 1989 SC
620 and Grosons Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.
v. State of U.P. (2001) 8 SCC 604 that an
order of blacklisting against a contractor
results in civil consequences and in such
situation the only requirement of law, in
absence of statutory rules, was to observe
principles of natural justice.

5. A show cause notice was required
to be given to the person against whom
the order for blacklisting is to be passed
and in absence of such notice the order of
blacklisting would be illegal and in
violation of principles of natural justice.
Admittedly no notice or opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner before
passing
the
impugned
orders.
The
argument of learned counsel for the
respondents that the respondent would
give post decisional hearing to the
petitioner cannot be accepted in view of
the law laid down by the apex court.

6. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated
5.9.1998 and 6.10.1998, passed by the
respondents,
Annexures-1
and
2
respectively to the writ petition, are
quashed. It shall be open to the
respondents to pass a fresh order in
accordance with law.

The parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 5.3.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE K.N. OJHA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27317 of 2001

Kaloo Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Pandey
Sri A.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Saumitra Singh
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act-Sections 11-A and
17-Applicability-By
invoking
urgency
clause under S. 17(1) government takes
possession of land- prior to making of
award under S. 11 of L.A. Act- Thus
owner is divested of land, vested with
government- Hence s. 11-A, held, has no
application to cases of acquisition under
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Kaloo Ram V. State of U.P. and others 179
S. 17 of Land Acquisition Act-where can
not take back the possession.

Held: Para 15

In Satendra Prasad Jain and others Vs.
State of U.P. AIR 1993 SC 2517 the
Supreme Court observed that when
Section 17 (1) is applied by invoking the
urgency clause, the Government takes
possession of the land prior to the
making of the award under Section 11,
and thereupon the owner is divested of
the land, which is vested in the
Government. Hence Section 11A has no
application to cases of acquisition under
Section 17 because the land has already
vested in the Government and there is no
provision in the Act by which the land
vested
in
the
Government
can
be
reverted to the owner, vide Ram Gopal
Varshney Vs. State of U.P. 2004(1) AWC
206.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This bunch of writ petitions listed
today is being disposed of by a common
judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is challenging the
impugned notification under Section 4
read with Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act, a copy of which is
Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. That
notification states that the land in question
is being acquired for Planned Industrial
Development for Greater NOIDA.

3. In a series of the decisions of the
Supreme Court and this Court it has been
held that acquisition for planned industrial
development is for a public purpose vide
Ajay Krishna Singhal and others Vs.
Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 721. In
the notification it is mentioned that as
there is urgency, hence Section 5A is
being dispensed with. In view of this
recital this Court cannot interfere vide Bal
Krishan Gulati Vs. State of U.P. and
others 1991 AWC 1210, M/s Garg
Farms and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others 1989 AWC 1137. In Kunwar Lal
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
(1989) 1 UPLBEC 772 and in Ram
Narain Rai Vs. State of U.P. (1991)
AWC 341 it has been held that
dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A
depends on the subjective satisfaction of
the State Government and hence the Court
cannot interfere. It has also been held
therein that where the declaration has
been made by the State Government
under section 6 (3) that a particular land is
needed for a public purpose, the said
declaration shall be conclusive evidence
of the fact that it is so needed.

4. In Baijnath Yadav Vs. State of
U.P. and others, Writ petition no. 12663
of 2002 decided on 19.10.2002 these
decisions have been followed.

5. In Amar Singh and others Vs.
State, Writ petition no. 29031 of 2003,
decided on 11.7.2003 the Court has held
that even Abadi land can be acquired. The
same view was taken in Manvir Singh
Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1) AWC 116 and
Horam Singh Vs. State of U.P. in writ
petition no. 24670 of 2003 decided on
2.7.2003.

6. In Kashi Nath Vs. State of U.P.
1993 ALJ 154 a Division Bench of this
Court following the decision of the
Supreme Court in Bai Malimabu Vs.
State of Gujrat, AIR 1978 SC 515 held
that the word 'land' in Section 3 (a)
includes the superstructures on the land.
Hence Abadi land can be acquired, even if
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
there are structures thereon, though, of
course compensation has to be paid for
the same.

7. In Amar Singh's case (supra) it
has also been held after a detailed
discussion
that
whether
to
grant
exemption from acquisition or not is a
purely administrative matter and this
Court could not interfere. It was also held
therein that directions directing disposal
of petitioner's application for exemption
should not be issued by the Court as this
only results in further delay of the
acquisition proceedings for years and
years.

8. In Ram Charittar and others
Vs. State of U.P. Writ petition no. 15586
of 2001 decided on 4.10.2002 a similar
view was taken.

9. In Raghubans Mishra Vs. State
of U.P. and others 1998 (3) AWC 1830 it
was held that where inquiry under Section
5A
has
been
dispensed
with
the
requirement of local publication does not
apply in view of U.P. Amendment no. 8
of 1974.

10. In Ghaziabad Development
Authority Vs. Jan Kalyan Samiti,
(1996) 2 SCC 365 it has been held that
where S. 17 (4) is invoked publication of
the notification in local newspapers is not
necessary
,
in
view
of
the
U.P.
Amendment of the Land Acquisition Act.

11. In some of these petitions, it has
been
alleged
that
the
acquisition
proceedings have lapsed in view of
Section 11 a. However, in our opinion,
since Section 17 has been invoked and it
has been stated in the counter affidavit
that possession has been taken, there is no
merit in the submission in view of the
Division Bench decision in Mahendra
Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others,
2002(2)
AWC
1629.
After
execution of the possession in memo
possession of the tenure holder or anyone
else is that of unauthorized occupants,
vide Awadh Behari Yadav Vs. State of
Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122, Bal Mukund
Khatri Educational and Industrial
Trust Vs. State of Punjab, J.T. 1996 (3)
SC 60, etc. The acquisition proceedings
will not lapse under Section 11 A in this
situation, vide Patharoo Vs. U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad, 2002 (5) AWC
3665.

12. In Daya Shanker and others
Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1999(1)
AWC 494 it was held that notification
under section 6 (3) is conclusive evidence
that the land was needed for public
purposes.

13. In First Land Acquisition
Collector and others Vs. Nirodhi
Prakash Gangoli and another, (2002) 4
SCC 160 the Supreme Court held that
existence of urgency is a matter of
subjective satisfaction of the Government.
Mere delay on the part of the Government
subsequent to its decision to dispense with
inquiry under Section 5A by exercising
power under Section 17 would not
invalidate the decision itself.

14. In Awadh Bihari Yadav and
others Vs. State of Bihar and others
(supra) and Sita Ram Gope and others
Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1996
SC 122 the Supreme Court held that in
case the Government has taken possession
of the land in question under Section 17
of the Act it is not open to the
Government
to
withdraw
from
the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Sunder Lal V. Union of India and another 181
acquisition by issuing notification under
Section 48. In such a case Section 11 A of
the Act is not attracted and the acquisition
proceeding would not lapse even if no
award was made within the period
prescribed by Section 11 A.

15. In Satendra Prasad Jain and
others Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1993 SC
2517 the Supreme Court observed that
when Section 17 (1) is applied by
invoking
the
urgency
clause,
the
Government takes possession of the land
prior to the making of the award under
Section 11, and thereupon the owner is
divested of the land, which is vested in
the Government. Hence Section 11A has
no application to cases of acquisition
under Section 17 because the land has
already vested in the Government and
there is no provision in the Act by which
the land vested in the Government can be
reverted to the owner, vide Ram Gopal
Varshney Vs. State of U.P. 2004(1)
AWC 206.

16. In view of the above, we find no
merit in these petitions.

The writ petitions are dismissed and
the interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Second Appeal No.424 of 1989

Sunder Lal

...Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
Union of India & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.B. Saran
Sri Paramatma Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Lal Ji Sinha
S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 311 (2)-
Railways
Act,
1890-S.
139-Removed
from
Service
enquiry-charges
found
proved Appeal partly allowed-Second
appeal-Appellants
contention
that
appointment letter filed by opposite
party was not admitted by him so it
cannot be taken into consideration-
s.139 of Railways Act provides that
entries in records on other documents of
Railways Administration can be proved
either by production of records or by
production of copy of entries certified by
officer having custody of records-in
present case, copy of appointment letter
had been certified by Assistant Security
Officer himself and said document has
been duly proved.

Held: Para

Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that the appointment letter
filed by the opposite party was not
admitted by him and therefore, the said
document
cannot
be
taken
into
consideration. This contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant is
devoid of any merit. Section 139 of the
Indian Railways Act 1890 provides that
entries
in
the
records
or
other
documents of a Railway Administration
can be proved either by the production
of the records or other documents or by
the production of a copy of the entries
certified by the Officer having custody of
the records. In the present case copy of
the appointment letter, filed by the
defendants, had been certified by the
Assistant Security Officer himself and the
said document has been duly proved.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 205
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in