# Ram Raj v. Board Of Revenue & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 5737 of 1978
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-raj-v-board-of-revenue-ors-52668
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Akhilesh Kumar, M.C. Yadav, M.L. Yadav,
Narayan
Dutt
Shukla,
P.N.
Singh,
Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, S.C., Salil
Srivastava, T.P. Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, where the Courts below in exercise of
their power under Section 331-A of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
have concurrently opined that the Revenue
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the
suit property was not 'land' within the meaning
of Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950, they ought
to have dismissed the suit or directed return of
the plaint for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Sections 3(14), 229-B, 331-A - Suit for
declaration with alternate prayer for possession
- Suit dismissed as not maintainable by three
Courts below - Suit property held not to be
'land' within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the
Act of 1950 - Issue referred under Section 331A - Sub-Divisional Officer carried out spot
inspection on 07.01.1968 - Suit property found
to be parti surrounded by boundary wall - No
crop raised for 14-15 months - Land crop-less
for last 2-3 years - Recorded as abadi - Suit
property not being used for purposes of
agriculture or pisciculture etc. - Finding that
property is abadi affirmed by Assistant Collector,
Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue
- Nothing perverse demonstrated - Courts
below concurrently opined that Revenue Court
had no jurisdiction to try the suit - Held that
they ought not to have dismissed the suit -
Instead, the plaint should have been returned
for presentation to the Court of competent
jurisdiction, which would be the Civil Court - A
Court which opines that it has no jurisdiction
over
the
subject-matter
does
not
have
jurisdiction to dismiss the suit - Impugned
judgments and decrees quashed - Direction
issued to return plaint in Suit No. 398 of 1967
for presentation to competent Court - Interim
protection
against
dispossession
granted.
(Paras 1, 9, 16-20)

HELD Writ petition arose out of a suit for
declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
with an alternate prayer for possession. Suit was
dismissed by the three Courts below as not
maintainable, the suit property being held not to
be 'land' within the meaning of Section 3(14) of
the Act of 1950.Sub-Divisional Officer, after
personal inspection recorded finding that the
suit property was recorded as abadi, and not
being used for purposes of agriculture or
pisciculture etc. That finding was affirmed in
appeal and second appeal.Since the Courts
below, in exercise of their power under Section
331-A of the Act of 1950, had concurrently
opined that the Revenue Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit, they ought not to
have dismissed it. Instead, the plaint should
have been returned for presentation to the
Court of competent jurisdiction. A Court that
opines not to have jurisdiction over the subjectmatter does not have jurisdiction to dismiss the
suit. Accordingly, the judgments and decrees
dated 22.04.1970, 22.07.1971 and 24.05.1978
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were quashed, and a direction was issued to
return the plaint for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction. The writ petition was
allowed in part. (Paras 16-20)
Writ petition allowed in part. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Bansraj and others v. Moti and others, 2019
(11) ADJ 185.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;

## Text

10 All. Ram Raj Vs. Board Of Revenue & Ors.
419
Court does not find that there is any
palpable error committed by the three
authorities in rejecting the application
under Section 5 of the Act of 1963. Hence,
for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is
devoid of merits and it is dismissed at the
admission stage itself.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 419
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 5737 of 1978

Ram Raj ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, Ratnakar
Chaudhary, T.B. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Kumar, M.C. Yadav, M.L. Yadav,
Narayan
Dutt
Shukla,
P.N.
Singh,
Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, S.C., Salil
Srivastava, T.P. Singh

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, where the Courts below in exercise of
their power under Section 331-A of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
have concurrently opined that the Revenue
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the
suit property was not 'land' within the meaning
of Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950, they ought
to have dismissed the suit or directed return of
the plaint for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction?

HEADNOTE
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 - Sections 3(14), 229-B, 331-A - Suit for
declaration with alternate prayer for possession
- Suit dismissed as not maintainable by three
Courts below - Suit property held not to be
'land' within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the
Act of 1950 - Issue referred under Section 331A - Sub-Divisional Officer carried out spot
inspection on 07.01.1968 - Suit property found
to be parti surrounded by boundary wall - No
crop raised for 14-15 months - Land crop-less
for last 2-3 years - Recorded as abadi - Suit
property not being used for purposes of
agriculture or pisciculture etc. - Finding that
property is abadi affirmed by Assistant Collector,
Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue
- Nothing perverse demonstrated - Courts
below concurrently opined that Revenue Court
had no jurisdiction to try the suit - Held that
they ought not to have dismissed the suit -
Instead, the plaint should have been returned
for presentation to the Court of competent
jurisdiction, which would be the Civil Court - A
Court which opines that it has no jurisdiction
over
the
subject-matter
does
not
have
jurisdiction to dismiss the suit - Impugned
judgments and decrees quashed - Direction
issued to return plaint in Suit No. 398 of 1967
for presentation to competent Court - Interim
protection
against
dispossession
granted.
(Paras 1, 9, 16-20)

HELD Writ petition arose out of a suit for
declaration under Section 229-B of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
with an alternate prayer for possession. Suit was
dismissed by the three Courts below as not
maintainable, the suit property being held not to
be 'land' within the meaning of Section 3(14) of
the Act of 1950.Sub-Divisional Officer, after
personal inspection recorded finding that the
suit property was recorded as abadi, and not
being used for purposes of agriculture or
pisciculture etc. That finding was affirmed in
appeal and second appeal.Since the Courts
below, in exercise of their power under Section
331-A of the Act of 1950, had concurrently
opined that the Revenue Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit, they ought not to
have dismissed it. Instead, the plaint should
have been returned for presentation to the
Court of competent jurisdiction. A Court that
opines not to have jurisdiction over the subjectmatter does not have jurisdiction to dismiss the
suit. Accordingly, the judgments and decrees
dated 22.04.1970, 22.07.1971 and 24.05.1978
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were quashed, and a direction was issued to
return the plaint for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction. The writ petition was
allowed in part. (Paras 16-20)
Writ petition allowed in part. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Bansraj and others v. Moti and others, 2019
(11) ADJ 185.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950;

18. List of Keywords
Suit for declaration - Section 229-B - Land -
Abadi - Section 3(14) - Section 331-A -
Jurisdiction of Revenue Court - Spot inspection
- Crop-less land - Not used for agriculture or
pisciculture - Return of plaint - Court of
competent jurisdiction - Civil Court.

19. CASE ARISING FROM
Judgment and decree dated 24.05.1978 passed
by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad in
Second Appeal No. 285(z) of 1970-71, affirming
the judgments dated 22.07.1971 passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division,
Gorakhpur and 22.04.1970 passed by the
Assistant Collector, First Class, Azamgarh in Suit
No. 398 of 1967.

20. Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Hari Manish Bahadur
Sinha; Ratnakar Chaudhary; T.B. Pandey
Advs For Respondents: Akhilesh Kumar; M.C.
Yadav; M.L. Yadav; Narayan Dutt Shukla; P.N.
Singh; Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi; S.C.; Salil
Srivastava; T.P. Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition arises out of a suit
for declaration under Section 229-B of the
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act
of 1950') with an alternate prayer for
possession, if upon trial possession of the
plaintiff and defendant No.2 be not
established. By the judgments and decree
impugned, passed concurrently by the three
Courts below, the suit has been dismissed
as not maintainable, the suit property being
held not to be 'land' within the meaning of
Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950.

2.
Before
proceeding
with
this
judgment, we must take note of the course
of proceedings here, which show that by a
judgment and order dated 14.12.2005, the
writ petition was allowed with a remand to
the Assistant Collector, respondent No.3, to
decide Issue No.4 himself in accordance
with the provisions of Section 331-A of the
Act of 1950.

3. A recall application on behalf of the
heirs and LRs of respondent No.9 was filed
along with a delay condonation application,
bearing C.M. Recall No.34408 of 2006 and
C.M.
Delay
Condonation
Application
No.34411 of 2006 with a case that when
judgment was passed on 14.12.2005, the
petitioner was long dead and his heirs and
LRs had not been brought on record,
rendering the judgment void. Respondent
Nos.7 and 9 also died pending the writ
petition and their heirs and LRs too had not
been substituted. The recall application
along
with
the
delay
condonation
application sought recall of the judgment
and order dated 14.12.2005 and abatement
of the writ petition. Pending the recall
application, an application for substitution
of the heirs and LRs of the deceased
petitioner, Ram Raj, being petitioner
Nos.1/1, 1/2 and 1/3, was allowed vide
order dated 04.12.2006. It also needs notice
that respondent No.7 is also dead and so
also respondent Nos.8 and 9. Their heirs
and LRs have been substituted much
earlier.

4. Heard Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Singh,
10 All. Ram Raj Vs. Board Of Revenue & Ors.
421
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Manik Chand Yadav, learned Counsel,
appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 9/2
and 9/3 and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kumar,
learned Counsel appearing for respondent
Nos. 8/1, 8/2, 8/3 and 8/4. Respondent Nos.
7/1, 7/2 and 7/3 have been sufficiently
served. No one appears on their behalf. The
records have been perused.

5. The petitioner instituted Suit
No.398 of 1967 before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh with a case that
his father, Jagannath, whose other son was
Ramjit, defendant No.2 to the suit, was the
sirdar of land, comprising Plot No.169 of
Khata No.36 and Plot No.170 of Khata
No.51, situate in Village Churipur, Tappa
Phareha, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar,
District Azamgarh (for short, 'the suit
property'). Jagannath was recorded as the
tenure-holder of the suit property since
1350 fasli, and, after the abolition of
zamindari, he became a sirdar of the same
and recorded as such in the revenue
records. Jagannath died in the year 1960,
leaving behind him, his two sons, the
petitioner Ram Raj and the other son
Ramjit, as his heirs and LRs, entitled to
inherit. The petitioner's name along with
that of his brother Ramjit, defendant No.2
to the suit and respondent No.8 to the writ
petition, was mutated in place of the
deceased, Jagannath. The petitioner and his
brother, Ramjit, accordingly, came to be
recorded as sirdar of the suit property.
Until the year 1369 fasli, according to the
petitioner, Plot No.169 was recorded as one
plot with an area of 0.369 acres.

6. The case is that in 1370 fasli,
respondent No.7 to the writ petition, now
represented by his heirs and LRs, who is
defendant No.1 to the suit, in collusion with
the Patwari, got Plot No.169 trifurcated and
recorded as Plot Nos.169/1 (0.62), 169/2
(0.203) and Plot No.169/3 (0.095). A
khatauni for the fasli year 1369 and khasra
for the fasli year 1370 has been placed on
record by the petitioner to show this
change, which he calls to be without
authority of the law. In substance, it is said
that this entry in favour of Harish Chandra
in column No.6 of the khasra is fictitious,
collusive and contrary to the Land Records
Manual. It is not backed by any order made
by a competent Authority. It is in
derogation of the petitioner's title and that
of his brother, Ramjit.

7. The short case then is that on the
basis of this fictitious entry, Harish
Chandra, paying ten times the annual land
revenue, got his estate enlarged into
bhumidhari with transferable rights. It is
noteworthy that the suit here was instituted
on 27.05.1966. It was contested by Harish
Chandra, respondent No.7, who denied the
plaint allegations, saying that he was the
bhumidhar of the suit property recorded in
his favour. One of the pleas raised in the
written statement filed by Harish Chandra
was that the suit property was not land
within the meaning of Section 3(14) of the
Act of 1950, and, therefore, the Revenue
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
This plea was founded on facts that the suit
property was not being used for the purpose
of agriculture or for purposes connected
with
horticulture,
animal
husbandry,
pisciculture etc., and, had, therefore, ceased
to be land within the meaning of Section
3(14).

8. The suit came up for framing of
issues before the Assistant Collector, First
Class, Azamgarh. He was apparently not
the Assistant Collector, In-charge of the
Sub-Division. He framed as many as nine
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issues. Of these, Issue No.4 read, 'Whether
the plots in suit are land within the
meaning of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act?'. The
Assistant Collector, First Class, Azamgarh
referred the aforesaid issue to the Assistant
Collector, In-charge of the Sub-Division or
the S.D.O. on 06.02.1967 in accordance
with the provisions of Section 331-A of the
Act of 1950.

9. The Sub-Divisional Officer carried
out a spot inspection on 07.01.1968,
drawing up an inspection memo, which is
on record. He returned his findings on the
issue on 04.07.1969, holding that the suit
property is not 'land' but 'abadi'. The
Assistant Collector, First Class, Azamgarh
vide his judgment and decree dated
22.04.1970 accepted the findings returned
by the Sub-Divisional Officer under subSection (3) of Section 331-A of the Act of
1950, finding himself bound and dismissed
the suit.

10. The said decree was appealed by
the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, to the
Commissioner of the Gorakhpur Division.
The appeal came on for hearing before the
Additional
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division, Gorakhpur on 22.07.1971. The
appeal was dismissed, affirming the Trial
Court's decree.

11. A second appeal was then carried
to the Board of Revenue, U.P. at
Allahabad, being Second Appeal No.285(z)
of 1970-71. This appeal too failed with the
Board dismissing it vide judgment and
decree dated 24.05.1978, affirming the
Courts below.

12. Aggrieved by the judgments of the
three Courts below and the decree made by
the Board, the petitioner, Ram Raj
instituted this writ petition on 13.07.1978.
It was admitted to hearing on 02.08.1978
and the petitioner's dispossession from the
suit property restrained. Apparently, this
interim order has continued in operation.

13. There has been one added feature
to the lis, not much substantive in nature,
and, that is that Harish Chandra transferred
the suit property to respondent No.9, Ram
Subhag. He is now represented on record
by his heirs and LRs.

14. It was argued by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the Courts
below have faltered in their understanding
of the jurisdictional fact, entitling the Trial
Court to make a reference under Section
331-A of the Act of 1950, in that, that it is
in dispute if the suit property was land
under Section 3(14) of the Act of 1950 or
abadi. Instead, according to the petitioner,
the jurisdictional fact is that the suit
property is a sirdari whereas according to
defendant No.1/respondent No.7, he is a
bhumidhar of some part of it. Therefore,
there was no occasion to make a reference
to the SDO under Section 331-A. The other
question, that has been raised by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that
the Assistant Collector of the Sub-Division
in this case was competent to decide the
issue, if the suit property was abadi under
the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section
331-A of the Act of 1950, read with
Sections 2 and 3 thereof, and there was no
occasion for him to refer the matter to the
Sub-Divisional Officer.

15. We are of opinion that so far as the
second question is concerned, the Courts
below are absolutely right in invoking subSection (1) of Section 331-A of the Act of
1950 and not falling back on the proviso,
inasmuch as the Assistant Collector, who
tried the suit, was apparently not In-charge
10 All. Ram Raj Vs. Board Of Revenue & Ors.
423
of the Sub-Division. He, therefore, sent it
to the Sub-Divisional Officer, which means
the Assistant Collector, In-charge of the
Sub-Division.

16. So far as the first question is
concerned, at this distance of time, and,
given the statutory changes, where all
sirdar have become bhumidhar, first
with non-transferable rights and then
with transferable rights, the relief
claimed by the petitioner and his rights
would have to be understood in accord
with the law. At the hearing of this
petition, the learned Counsel for parties
have been at much issue, if indeed the
question whether the suit property was
agricultural or abadi, has all been
correctly decided by the Trial Court.
What they now submit is that the Courts
below have erred in deciding the
question if the suit property was land
within the definition of Section 3(14) of
the Act of 1950 or abadi. We are of
opinion, upon hearing learned Counsel
for parties, that substantially the dispute
in this petition is if indeed the suit
property is land, regarding which the
suit is cognizable by the Revenue Court
or abadi, where the suit would be
cognizable by the Civil Court. The
other question, that really matters, is,
and, which we think, is the all
important one now, is that if the suit
property is indeed abadi, as held by the
Courts
below,
should
they
have
dismissed the suit or made an order,
directing a return of the plaint for
presentation to the Court of competent
jurisdiction.

17. Upon a perusal of the Trial
Court's order, we find that the SubDivisional Officer, Sadar, Azamgarh,
before deciding the issue of nature of
the suit property, carried out a personal
inspection thereof on 07.01.1968 and
found it to be parti surrounded by a
boundary wall, where no crop had been
raised in the past 14-15 months. In
deciding the question about the nature
of land i.e. if it is abadi, the SubDivisional Officer opined the land to be
crop-less for the last 2 or 3 years. He
looked into the extracts of the khasra,
where he found it to be recorded as
abadi.
He
recorded
a
categorical
finding that the suit property was not
being used for purposes of agriculture
or pisciculture etc. and that it was not
land. This finding has been affirmed by
the Additional Commissioner in appeal
and also by the Board in second appeal.
Nothing
perverse
has
been
demonstrated about this finding by
learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
Learned
Counsel
for
respondent Nos.9/1 and 9/2, Mr. Manik
Chand Yadav, has supported the finding
and urged that the writ petition be
dismissed.

18. We find that since the Courts
below, in exercise of their power under
Section 331-A of the Act of 1950, have
concurrently opined that the Revenue
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit,
they ought not have dismissed it.
Instead, the plaint should have been
returned for presentation to the Court of
competent jurisdiction, which in this
case would obviously be the Civil
Court.
The
plaint
with
necessary
amendments could then be presented to
that Court. The disturbing part is that
this process has consumed almost the
lifetime of two generations. The action
involved
in
this
writ
petition
commenced in the year 1966 and this
writ petition has taken 47 years to
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decide without event in the cause. We
find
ourselves
helpless
to
enter
judgment on merits of the parties' case,
because neither the Revenue Court nor
the Civil Court have tried the suit. This
indeed is a very disturbing state of
affairs and we think that for the future,
wherever
jurisdictional
issues
are
involved, irrespective of the nature of
proceedings before this Court or the
Courts below, all causes must be placed
on a priority schedule and decided
within matters of weeks, if not days.

19. The issue as to what course of
action is to be adopted in the event a
suit is held not cognizable by the Civil
or the Revenue Court, as the case may
be, we may refer to Bansraj and others
v. Moti and others, 2019 (11) ADJ
185, where after a copious review of
authority in point, I held:

"45.
A
reading
of
the
phraseology of Rule 10 which speaks
about the exercise of power to return a
plaint at any stage of the suit, and then
the explanation clarifying that it can be
exercised also by a Court of appeal or
revision, in the opinion of this Court
postulates that there is absolutely no
class of cases or stage of proceeding
where the power to return a plaint ought
not to be exercised, once the Court
finds that it has no jurisdiction. The fact
that the power can be exercised by the
Court of appeal or revision, that has
been clarified through an explanation,
logically takes within its fold those
cases where trial has gone through the
whole way. The principle that where a
plaintiff moves a wrong Court that does
not have jurisdiction to try the action
that he has brought, must be penalized
with a dismissal of his suit does not
seem to fit into the scheme of things.
The question of jurisdiction at times
may be quite debatable, or jurisdictional
facts may depend upon determination of
the Court to be made during trial
subject to evidence, or at times upon an
application of the law which the parties
did not understand to be that what the
Court has concluded. If any of these
contingencies where the Court finds
itself to be without jurisdiction, there is
simply no reason to penalize a litigant
with the dismissal of his suit. Looked at
from another angle, a Court that opines
not to have any jurisdiction over the
subject-matter of the suit does not have
jurisdiction to decide anything about it;
a fortiori it has no jurisdiction to
dismiss the suit."

20. In this view of the matter, the
writ petition succeeds and is allowed in
part. The impugned judgment and
decree dated 24.05.1978 passed by the
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad,
the judgment dated 22.07.1971 passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and the
judgment dated 22.04.1970 passed by
the Assistant Collector, First Class,
Azamgarh, are hereby quashed. A
direction is issued to the Assistant
Collector, First Class, Azamgarh, or
whichever
Court
is
its
present
successor, to return the plaint in Suit
No.398 of
1967 to the plaintiffpetitioner, for presentation to the Court
of competent jurisdiction in accordance
with law, within six weeks of receipt of
a copy of this order. It is further
ordered that for a period of six months,
or until appropriate orders are passed on
the temporary injunction application, if
made in the suit, now presented to the
Court of competent jurisdiction by the
10 All. Hatam Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
425
plaintiff-petitioner, whichever is earlier, the
petitioner shall not be dispossessed from
the suit property.

21. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 425
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No. 4986 of 2005
&
Connected With Other Cases

Hatam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Pankaj Dubey, Pradeep Kumar Sinha, R D
Tiwari, Shiv Kant Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashwani K. Mishra, Jagannath Maurya,
Mahendra
Pratap,
Mahesh
Chandra
Chaturvedi
(Sr.
Adv.),
Rajesh
Dutta
Pandey, Tejasvi Misra, Ved Byas Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to acquisition of land under the
Land
Acquisition
Act,
1894-validity
of
notifications dated 16.10.2004 (S. 4/17) and
28.11.2005 (S. 6/17(1)); challenge confined to:
"Wrongful invocation of urgency provisions
under under S. 17(1) and (4) of the Act 1894
and dispensation of enquiry under S. 5-A of the
Act 1894";

Whether dispensation of inquiry under S. 5A of
Act, 1894 is illegal, arbitrary and founded on no
material to show existence of actual urgency?

Headnotes
Land Acquisition - S. 17(1) & (4) -
Dispensation of S. 5-A - Strict standard of
urgency - S. 17 is "an exception to the
normal procedure" and applies only where
land
is
"urgently
needed"
or
for
"unforeseen emergency" - Right under S.
5-A is "a substantial right" and has
"flavour of fundamental rights under
Article 14" - Planned Development - No
justification
for
invoking
emergency
clause
-
Development
of
residential
colonies "takes many years if not decades"
and "no reason why summary enquiry as
contemplated under S. 5-A may not be
held"
-
Ground
cited
-
fear
of
unauthorised
constructions
-
Held
insufficient - State relied solely on the
note stating: "There is likelihood of
construction
of
unauthorised
constructions
in
case
of
delay
in
acquisition of the proposed land, hence
necessary to invoke S. 17" Held to be
inadequate
and
contrary
to
law
-
Subjective satisfaction - Judicial review -
Formation of opinion vitiated - Delay of
over 13 months in issuing S. 6 notification
shows absence of real urgency - State
"remained totally oblivious of the fact that
it had invoked emergency powers" and
"failed to distinguish between existence of
public purpose and existence of real
urgency" - Relief - Moulding - Acquisition
not quashed in entirety - Following Sahara
India and NOIDA v. Ravindra Kumar,
Court
moulds
relief:
Option to State to retain all or part of the
land,
with
compensation
determined
under the 2013 Act.

Held: Dispensation of S. 5-A enquiry illegal -
"Formation of opinion by the State Government
to invoke S. 17, albeit subjective, suffers from
manifest error of law" - State acted "arbitrarily
and illegally" in invoking S. 17(1) and 17(4) - No
real urgency established - Ground of preventing
unauthorised
construction
"would
not
be
justified" - Development schemes "take many
years if not decades" -State delayed issuing S. 6
notification "after more than thirteen months" -
Relief moulded - option to retain land - Court
declines to quash entire acquisition; instead
grants option as in Sahara India: "It shall be
open to the respondents to retain any part of
the land in dispute" - Relevant date for
compensation deemed 01.01.2014 - If option