# N. R. BATRA v. U.P. STATE (Alagiriswami, !.)

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 826
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-09-17
- **Bench:** A. Alagir!Swaml, P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-r-batra-v-u-p-state-alagiriswami-6680
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

. Lan<f Acq1;1isition Act-Sec. 4 (1), SA. 17 (1) and 17(4)-Ur,zency Clau.~e·
D1spens1!1g wllh hea.ring of objections-Person entitled to object-Whether any
person in the locahty can object or person interested in land concerned· 011/y
can object.
!he appellant is a tenant of Plot No. 428.
A notification was issued under
s.echon 4 ( 1) of the: Land Acquisition Act for setting up an industrial estate in
respect of Plot No. 428 and Plot No. 436.
By a notification under section 17
( ~ ~ the provi~ions of section SA were dispensed with on the ground that prov1s1?~s o~ S\!~Ion 17(1) (Urgency) were applicable.
The appellant filed a. Writ
Petition 1n High Court challenging the said notification issued under section 17
( 4).
The Single Judge dismissed the Wri! Petition. An appeal filed to the
Division Bench was also dismissed.
On an appeal by Special Leave, it was contended by the appellant that there
~as a pucca co~struction on. Plot No. 436 which was also notified for acquisition under the impugned notifrcation and consequently the provisions- of Section
17 ( 4) would not be applicable to that land as it was not arabfe or waste
land and could not be acquired by dispensing with the enquiry under section
SA and as such, the whole notification is bad and should be quashed.
Dismis~1ing the appeal,
HELD:
1. AdnUttedly the appellant's land is a waste and arable land and
thu~
falls under section 17(1). The person who could have taken objection to the.
equiry under section SA. being dispensed. with was the owner of Plot No. 436.
He has not objected to the acquisiti-0n.
It is, therefore, not open to the appellant to queS<tion the validity of the notification.
If the ownocr of Plot No.
436 had objec;ted to the notification different considerations
might
arise.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1763) distinguished.
[827E-F]
2. Section SA should be understood in the background of section
4(1).
Section 4 (1) requires only the locality in which the· land is situate, to
be
mentioned in the notification. But in actual practice the survey numbers of the
lands sought to be aoquired are· given .in such notification~. The question of
notifying the locality might probably arise when all the lands in a village
are
sought to be acquired.
Otherwise, the word locality is a word
of
such
indefinite import that it is difficult to
conceive
of any
locality
in any
particular village being notified for acquisition.
When a locality in the
sense of a village or a group of villages in notified for acquisition any person
interested in any land in that locality would be
entitled to be heard under
section SA.
But where land proposed to be· acqui'red is specificnlly mentioned
in the notification .it is only the person interested in that land Nho is entitled
to be heard under section 5A. That is why section
5A
provides that any
person interested may Object to the acquisition of land or of any land in the
locality as the case may be.
The latter part would apply to a case where
lands in any locality are notified undeT section 4 rt).
That .js the significance of the use ofl the words "as the case· nlay be."
Anv per~on unconnec1ed with land cannot obiect tn the acquisition of the land in
the
locality
since he would not be a person interested.
[828-F-H. 829A-Cl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJ'SD!CT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 1154 of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the Jud~ment and Order dated the
18th December, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No. 324 of 1962.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
)
I
D
E
F
G
i
H
N. R. BATRA v. U.P. STATE (Alagiriswami, !.)
827
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Miss Rani'
Arora, for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.
The appellant is a tenant of plot No. 428 in
mauza Dehra Khas, pargana Central Doon, district Dehradun.
This
land along with some other pieces of land was notified under s. 4(1 ).
of the Land Acquisition Act on February 8, 1962 fo

## Text

'826
NAVNEET RAM BATRA
- \',
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH & ORS.
September 17, 1975
[A. ALAGIR!SWAML, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J
. Lan<f Acq1;1isition Act-Sec. 4 (1), SA. 17 (1) and 17(4)-Ur,zency Clau.~e·
D1spens1!1g wllh hea.ring of objections-Person entitled to object-Whether any
person in the locahty can object or person interested in land concerned· 011/y
can object.
!he appellant is a tenant of Plot No. 428.
A notification was issued under
s.echon 4 ( 1) of the: Land Acquisition Act for setting up an industrial estate in
respect of Plot No. 428 and Plot No. 436.
By a notification under section 17
( ~ ~ the provi~ions of section SA were dispensed with on the ground that prov1s1?~s o~ S\!~Ion 17(1) (Urgency) were applicable.
The appellant filed a. Writ
Petition 1n High Court challenging the said notification issued under section 17
( 4).
The Single Judge dismissed the Wri! Petition. An appeal filed to the
Division Bench was also dismissed.
On an appeal by Special Leave, it was contended by the appellant that there
~as a pucca co~struction on. Plot No. 436 which was also notified for acquisition under the impugned notifrcation and consequently the provisions- of Section
17 ( 4) would not be applicable to that land as it was not arabfe or waste
land and could not be acquired by dispensing with the enquiry under section
SA and as such, the whole notification is bad and should be quashed.
Dismis~1ing the appeal,
HELD:
1. AdnUttedly the appellant's land is a waste and arable land and
thu~
falls under section 17(1). The person who could have taken objection to the.
equiry under section SA. being dispensed. with was the owner of Plot No. 436.
He has not objected to the acquisiti-0n.
It is, therefore, not open to the appellant to queS<tion the validity of the notification.
If the ownocr of Plot No.
436 had objec;ted to the notification different considerations
might
arise.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1763) distinguished.
[827E-F]
2. Section SA should be understood in the background of section
4(1).
Section 4 (1) requires only the locality in which the· land is situate, to
be
mentioned in the notification. But in actual practice the survey numbers of the
lands sought to be aoquired are· given .in such notification~. The question of
notifying the locality might probably arise when all the lands in a village
are
sought to be acquired.
Otherwise, the word locality is a word
of
such
indefinite import that it is difficult to
conceive
of any
locality
in any
particular village being notified for acquisition.
When a locality in the
sense of a village or a group of villages in notified for acquisition any person
interested in any land in that locality would be
entitled to be heard under
section SA.
But where land proposed to be· acqui'red is specificnlly mentioned
in the notification .it is only the person interested in that land Nho is entitled
to be heard under section 5A. That is why section
5A
provides that any
person interested may Object to the acquisition of land or of any land in the
locality as the case may be.
The latter part would apply to a case where
lands in any locality are notified undeT section 4 rt).
That .js the significance of the use ofl the words "as the case· nlay be."
Anv per~on unconnec1ed with land cannot obiect tn the acquisition of the land in
the
locality
since he would not be a person interested.
[828-F-H. 829A-Cl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJ'SD!CT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 1154 of 1972.
Appeal by special leave from the Jud~ment and Order dated the
18th December, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
No. 324 of 1962.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
)
I
D
E
F
G
i
H
N. R. BATRA v. U.P. STATE (Alagiriswami, !.)
827
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Miss Rani'
Arora, for the appellant.
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Jndgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.
The appellant is a tenant of plot No. 428 in
mauza Dehra Khas, pargana Central Doon, district Dehradun.
This
land along with some other pieces of land was notified under s. 4(1 ).
of the Land Acquisition Act on February 8, 1962 for acquLsition for
the purpose of setting up an industrial estate at Dehradun.
By the
same notification, under s. 17 ( 4) of the Act it was directed that the
provisions of s. 5A shall not apply on the ground that the provisions of
s. 17 ( 1) were applicable to the facts of the case.
He filed a writ petition out of which this appeal arises for the issue of a writ of certiorari
for quashing the notification dated 8th February, 1962. He made various allegations which it is not necessary to go into for the purpose of
this appeal.
A learned
single Jndge of the Allahabad High Court
dismissed the petition and an appeal fi!ed by him was dismissed by a
Division Bench of the same High Court.
The only point argued before us was that there was a pucca construction on plot No. 436 which was also notified for acquisition under
the impugned notification and consequently the provisions of s.17 ( 4)
would not be applicable to that land as it was not arable or waste land
which could be acquired by clispensing with the enquiry under s.5A and
as such the whole notification is bad and should be quashed. Admittedly the appellant's land is a waste and arable land and tlius falls under
s.17 (1).
There was therefore no objection to the Gc!vernment dispensing with the provisions of s.5A by resorting to the power conferred
by s.17 ( 4). The person who could have taken objection to the enquiry·
under s. 5A being dispensed with was the owner of plot No. 436. He
has not objected to the acquisition.
He has taken the compensation
awarded to him and walked out.
It is, therefore, not open to the appellant to question the validity of this notification. If possibly the
owner of the fand sought to be acquired but any person in the locality
derations might arise.
The appellant who is only the· owner of plot
No. 428 in relation to which s. 17 ( 1) and 17 ( 4) are applicable and
therefore enquiry under s. 5A could properly be dispensed with, cannot
object to the same notification because the notification also relates to
another land to which s.17 (1) and 17 ( 4) are not applicable when the
owner of that land has not chosen to challenge the notification.
On behalf of the appellant, however, reliance was placed on certain observations of this Court in Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P.(1) to.
the following effect :
"It was contended by Mr. S. P. Sinha appearing on behalf
of the Municipal Board, Basti, that a part of the land notified
for acquisition was waste or arable and in support of his contention, counsel referred us to certain revenue record.
But
(I) A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 1763.
82S
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 s.c.R.
i£ only a part of the land is waste or arable and the rest is
not, notification under s. 17 ( 4) dispe'nsing with compliance
with the requirements of s. 5-A would be invalid. Ir would
not be open to the Court to regard the notification as partial·
Jy good and partially bad, for if the State had no power to
dispense with the inquiry in respect of any part of the land
notified under s. 4 (1), an inquiry must be held s. 5-Ai giving an opportunity to persons interested in the land notified
to raise their objections to the proposed acquisition an(! in
that inquiry the persons interested. cmmot be restricted to
raising objections in respect of land other than waste 0r arable
land."
That case is the converse of the present case.
The appellant therein
was a person who was entitled to object to the notification.
Under
those circumstances the question whether the notification is to
bo
quashed completely or only partially might well arise.
But such
a
question cannot arise where a person like the appellant has no right
to impugn the notification.
It was, however, urged that under s. 5-A( 1) it is not only the
owner of the land sought to be acquired but any person in the locality
may object and his objections will have to be heard. Section 5-A(l)
reads as follows :
A
B
c
D
"5A.(1) Any person interested in any !anti which has
been notified under section 4, sub-section ( 1J,
as
being
needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for
a Company may, within thirty days after the issue of the
notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any
E
land in the locality, as the case may be."
This section should be understood in the background of the provisions
of s. 4 (1) which reads as fo!Jows :
"4.(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is neelded or is likely to be
needed for any pnblic pn@ose, a notification to that effect
F
shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector
shall cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality."
It may be noticed that under this section what is necessary is that
only the locality the land in which appears to the appropriate. Government as need~d or. as likely to be. needed for any public
purpos·o,
G
need be specified m the not1ficallon under that
section.
But
in
actu~l practice always the survey numbers of the lands sought to be
acqmred . are ~iven in such notifications.
The question of notifyin_g
the locahty might probably arise when all the lands in a vil!a~o arc
sought to be acquired otherwise the word 'locality' is a wo~d of
such indefinite import that it is difficult to conceive of any locality
in any particular village being notified for acquisition.
Therefore
H
when a locality in the sens·e of a village or perhaps a group of villages
is
notified
for
acquisition
any
person
interested
in
any
. +
-
I
A
B
c
I
D
N. R. BATRA v. U.P. STATE (Alagiriswami, J.)
829
land in that locality would be entitled to be heard under s. SA. But
where the land proposed to be acquired 1s specifically menlloned in
the nottfication it is only thei person interested in that land who is
entitled to be heard under s. SA.
That is why s. SA provides . that
any person interested in any land which has been notified
under
s.4(1) may object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in
the locality <TS the case may be.
The· latter part would apply to a
case where lands in any locality are notified under s. 4( 1). That
is the significance of the use of the words "as the case may be". To
give any otj1er interpretation to this section would mean that any
person i_ntei;ested in any land which has been notified may object to
the acquisition of his land or to the acquisition of any land itr the
locality.
This cannot be correct because he would not be a person
interested in any land in the locality which is a pre-requisite before
a person can object to the acquisition of any land.
In other words
in the background of section 4(1), section SA provides that whern
I and in any locality is notified un\:ler section 4 (1) any person who
is interested in any land in the locality may object to the acq>Iisition
of his land or any land in the locality as the case may be.
We are therefore of opinion that there are no merit'.\
in
this
appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed with costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal dismissed.