# ~ TIKA RAM & ORS v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2009] 14 S.C.R. 905
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-09-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, V.S. Sirpurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tika-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-25097
- **Pages:** 85

## Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6(2) and s.
17(4) (as amended by Amending Act No. 68of1984) - Land
Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, c
1991 - Issuance of simultaneous notifications u/ss. 4(1) and
6(2) held to be invalid by Supreme Court - Legislature
/
passing Amendment Act of 1991 validating the notifications
and declarations issued between the period from date of 1984
..
"'
amendment and the judgment of Supreme Court -
D
=r
Constitutional validity of the validating Act challenged -
Upheld by High Court relying on judgments passed by
.;
Supreme Court upholding the Validating Act - On appeal,
held: The Amending Act is valid and constitutional -
Legislature has the power to amend the law validating the
E
(
actions declared invalid by a court of law - Such amendment
is not an incursion on the judicial power of the court - The
4
provisions of Validating Act is not ultra vires Articles 245, 246
·"'
of Constitution - The provisions are also not violative of
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A and 300A of the Constitution for F
invidious discrimination - On facts invocation of the the
urgency clause was justified - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A, 300A, 245 and 246.
In a land acquisition proceedings, notifications under
Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) of Land G
j
Acquisition Act were issued simultaneously. The same,
were challenged and the High Court held that
simultaneous notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(2)
could not be issued, particularly, after the amendment of
905
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Section 17(4) of the Act, which provision was amended
by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. State of Uttar Pradesh
filed Special Leave Petition, where the order passed by
the High Court was upheld in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Radhey Sh yam Nigam 1989 (1) SCC 591. The Court
B observed that it was open to the appellants to issue a
fresh declaration under Section 6. The State, instead of
issuing fresh declaration, brought a Bill before the State
Legislature. It was decided to amend the. Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to Uttar Pradesh
c to provide for validating the proceedings of land
acquisition in respect of which the notifications under
sub Section (1) of Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section
17 of the said Act had been published in the Gazette after
September 24, 1984 (the date .of amendment) but before
0
January H, 1989 (the date of judgment of the Supreme
Court) and the declaration under Section 6 which had
been issued either simultaneously or at any time after the
application in the Gazette of the said notification under
Section 4(1). This Ordinance later on got .the status of an
E Act, being Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendmen~
and Validation) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. V of 1991). The Act,
was challenged before High Court, where it was found
to be valid, holding that the invalidity of the land
acquisition in issuance of Section 4 and Section 6
notifications simultaneously, was cured by this Act,
F
which .was made applicable with retrospective effect; and
that the Act was not with an intention to wipe out the
judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam.
Validity of the Validating Act also came to be
G challenged before this Court in Meerut Develop.m.ent
Authority v. Satvir Singh and Ors. 1996 (11) SCC 462. Th~re,
it was held that the exercise of the power under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6 were not vitiated and
the Validating Act was not invalid. This Court also took
H
>
i
>
)
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
907
_.-Inote of the fact that despite enactment of the Amendment A
Act 68 of 1984, amending Section 17(4), the State needed
further amendments and for that reason, the U.P.
Amendment Act V of 1991 was passed by giving the
'
retrospective effect from the date of the Amendment Act,
_____.._
1984. The effect of judgment in case of Radhey Shyam, B
thus, was nullified.
~
Writ petitions in

## Text

_Characters 0–39,904 of 165,923. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39904 for what follows._

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 905
...
~ ..
TIKA RAM & ORS.
A
...
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2650-2652 of 1998)
J
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
-'
8
'
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6(2) and s.
17(4) (as amended by Amending Act No. 68of1984) - Land
Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, c
1991 - Issuance of simultaneous notifications u/ss. 4(1) and
6(2) held to be invalid by Supreme Court - Legislature
/
passing Amendment Act of 1991 validating the notifications
and declarations issued between the period from date of 1984
..
"'
amendment and the judgment of Supreme Court -
D
=r
Constitutional validity of the validating Act challenged -
Upheld by High Court relying on judgments passed by
.;
Supreme Court upholding the Validating Act - On appeal,
held: The Amending Act is valid and constitutional -
Legislature has the power to amend the law validating the
E
(
actions declared invalid by a court of law - Such amendment
is not an incursion on the judicial power of the court - The
4
provisions of Validating Act is not ultra vires Articles 245, 246
·"'
of Constitution - The provisions are also not violative of
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A and 300A of the Constitution for F
invidious discrimination - On facts invocation of the the
urgency clause was justified - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 14, 19, 21, 39, 48A, 300A, 245 and 246.
In a land acquisition proceedings, notifications under
Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 6(2) of Land G
j
Acquisition Act were issued simultaneously. The same,
were challenged and the High Court held that
simultaneous notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(2)
could not be issued, particularly, after the amendment of
905
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Section 17(4) of the Act, which provision was amended
by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984. State of Uttar Pradesh
filed Special Leave Petition, where the order passed by
the High Court was upheld in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Radhey Sh yam Nigam 1989 (1) SCC 591. The Court
B observed that it was open to the appellants to issue a
fresh declaration under Section 6. The State, instead of
issuing fresh declaration, brought a Bill before the State
Legislature. It was decided to amend the. Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in its application to Uttar Pradesh
c to provide for validating the proceedings of land
acquisition in respect of which the notifications under
sub Section (1) of Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section
17 of the said Act had been published in the Gazette after
September 24, 1984 (the date .of amendment) but before
0
January H, 1989 (the date of judgment of the Supreme
Court) and the declaration under Section 6 which had
been issued either simultaneously or at any time after the
application in the Gazette of the said notification under
Section 4(1). This Ordinance later on got .the status of an
E Act, being Land Acquisition (Uttar Pradesh Amendmen~
and Validation) Act, 1991 (U.P. Act No. V of 1991). The Act,
was challenged before High Court, where it was found
to be valid, holding that the invalidity of the land
acquisition in issuance of Section 4 and Section 6
notifications simultaneously, was cured by this Act,
F
which .was made applicable with retrospective effect; and
that the Act was not with an intention to wipe out the
judgment of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam.
Validity of the Validating Act also came to be
G challenged before this Court in Meerut Develop.m.ent
Authority v. Satvir Singh and Ors. 1996 (11) SCC 462. Th~re,
it was held that the exercise of the power under Section
4(1) and declaration under Section 6 were not vitiated and
the Validating Act was not invalid. This Court also took
H
>
i
>
)
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
907
_.-Inote of the fact that despite enactment of the Amendment A
Act 68 of 1984, amending Section 17(4), the State needed
further amendments and for that reason, the U.P.
Amendment Act V of 1991 was passed by giving the
'
retrospective effect from the date of the Amendment Act,
_____.._
1984. The effect of judgment in case of Radhey Shyam, B
thus, was nullified.
~
Writ petitions in the instant case were filed
...
challenging generally the land acquired at the instance
of Lucknow Development Authority. Besides this, c
challenge to the provisions of the Act, as also to the
provisions of the Validating Act, the Writ Petitioners have
---
challenged the non-compliance of the essential
provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Act. They have also
~
challenged the urgency clause made applicable to the
~
,,{"
various land acquisitions. On merits, it was suggested D
'
that there had been no proper publication in the
~
newspapers or at the convenient places of the locality as
required under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act.
There had been no preliminary survey as envisaged
under Section 3(A) of the Act and no damages were paid
E
to any tenure holder as provided under Section 3(8) of
-4.
the Act, either before or after passing of the Validating
>
Act. There are various such challenges on merit to the
process of acquisition. Relying on the judgments in
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti F
Sheopuri 1996 (1) SCC 562; Ghaziabad Development
Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri 1996 (2) SCC 365
and Meerut Development Authority case., the High Court,
by the impugned judgment, affirmed the validity again
+
and the High Court further repealed the argument that G
these judgments were per incurium and hence required
reconsideration. High Court also rejected the argument
regarding the invalidity of Sections 17(1)(3A) and (4) of
the Act. Hence the present appeals.
H
,,_
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
t+
A
The questions for consideration before this Court
+'...
were as regards Constitutional Validity of Amendment
Act 5/1991; effect of alleged non-payment of 80%
compensation u/s. 17 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894;
challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
B and issue of urgency and applicability of Section 17 of
Land Acquisition Act.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
...
Ic
HELD: I. Constitutional Validity of Amendment Act 5/
1991:
1.1. The Legislature had no power to overrule a
judgment. However, it has the power to suitably amend
-.-
the law by use of proper phraseology removing the
D defects pointed out by the court and by amending the
•
-J.
law inconsistent with the law ·declared by the court so that
..
the defects which were pointed out were never on statute
""
for enforcement of law. Such an exercise of power to
amend a statute is not an incursion on the judicial power
E of the court but as a statutory exercise on the constituent
power to suitably amend the law and to validate the
actions which have been declared to be inv_alid. [Para 30)
[953-0-E]
.J..
.....
Meerut Development Authority v. Satbir Singh 1996 (11)
F sec 462 - relied on
Kashmira Singh vs. State of U.P. AIR 1987 Allahabad
113 (11/1); State of UP. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam 1989 (1)
SCC 591; Somwanti and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1963 (2)
G SCR 775; Indian Aluminium Co. and Ors. v. State of Kera/a
and Ors. 1996 (7) SCC 637; Ghaziabad Development
+
Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri 1996 (2) SCC 365;
S.R. Bhagwat vs. State of Mysore 1995 (6) SCC 16; ITW
Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2004 (3)
H SCC 48; Bakhtawar Trust v. M.D. Narayan and Ors. 2003 (5)
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
909
'
,..-t
SCC 298; Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India 1978 (2) A
SCC 50; Indira Gandhi .v. Raj Narayan 1975 Supp. SCC 1;
Virender Singh Hooda vs. State of Haryana 2004 (12) SCC
588; l.N. Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1976 (4) SCC
750; Janpad Sabha vs. C.P. Syndicate 1970 (1) SCC 509,
referred to.
B
~
1.2. It is not correct to say that the Amending Act did
}•
not remove the defect. This question was considered and
....
concluded in Meerut Development Authority's case~ The
same applies to the further question challenging Section c
3 of the Amending Act wherein it is provided that the
notification would not be invalid on the ground that
declaration uls. 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published
on the same day on which the notification uls. 4 of the
principal Act was published or on any other date prior to D
(
;tthe date of publication of notification u/s. 4 of the Act.
[Para 34] [957-E-G]
1.3. Even a situation, where Section 6 declaration was
made prior to the publication of notification uls. 4, was
held to be covered and cured under Section 3 of E
Amending Act, the validity of which was confirmed by this
Court. Added proviso would have to be read along with
.I.,
and in the light of Section 3 of the amending Act which
>-
clearly envisages a situation of the declaration under
Section 6 being published in the official Gazette on the
F
same date on which notification under Section 4 (1) of the
principal Act was published in official Gazette or on any
day prior to the date of publication of such notification
as defined in Section 4 sub-section (1) of the principal
Act. Therefore, what is contemplated in proviso is the G
+
"publication" of notification. [Para 36] (958-G-H; 959-A-C]
Somwanti and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1963 (2) SCR 775;
Mohd. Ali and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1998 (9) SCC
480, relied on
H
·
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
1.4. The word 'a declaration' in proviso to Section
17(4), as inserted by the Validating Act, would mean
published or a notified declaration under Section 6(2) of
the Act when it is read in the light of Section 3 which
refers to and validates not merely "a declaration", but the
·B publication thereof in official Gazette. As such there is
nothing wrong even if the declaration is prior in time and
its notification is simultaneous with the notification under
A
Section 4 of the principal Act [Para 39] (960-A-C]
~
c
Meerut Development Authority 1996 (11) SCC 462;
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti,
Sheopuri 1996 (1) SCC 562; Ghaziabad Development
Authority v. Jan Kalyan Samiti, Sheopuri 1996 (2) SCC 365,
relied on.
D
1.5. Section 17(4) of the Act as amended by the
Validating Act is not ultra vires of the Articles 245 and 246
of the Constitution, on the ground that it nearly overrules
the decision of this Court in Radhey Shyam's case. The
validity of the validating law, depends upon whether the
E Legislature possesses the competence which it claims
over the subject matter and whether in making the
validation, it removes the defect which the courts had
found in the existing law. The Amending Act has clearly
,J.
passed these tests. That question is also closed by
...
F Meerut Development Authority case. [Para 40] (960-D-E;
961-e-D]
Meerut Development Authority 1996 (11) SCC 462, relied
on
G
Bhri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough
+
Municipality 1969 (2) Sec 283; Ujagar Prints and Ors. (II) v.
Union of India and Ors. 1989 (3) sec 488, distinguished
Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India 1978 (2) SCC
H
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
911
50; Bakhtawar Trust v. M.O. Narayan and Ors. 2003 (5) SCC A
298; ITW Signode v. Collector of Central Excise 2004 (3)
SCC 48; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Borough
Municipality 1969 (2) SCC 283, referred to
1.6. It is not correct to say that the Amending Act is 8
ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution, inasmuch as
.)-.
it deprives the petitioner of higher compensation as may
be admissible pursuant to the fresh acquisition
I!>
proceedings after 1987. For establishing their rights, the
appellants would have to establish that the State c
Government was required, in law, to make a fresh
acquisition and could not continue with the old one.
There was nothing wrong with the old proceedings which
came to be validated by the Amending Act. The Court has
also found that the Amending Act was a perfectly valid
D
legislation. In that view, the challenge must fail. [Para 41]
(962-B-C, E-F]
State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni
and Ors. 1983 (2) SCC 33; T.R. Kapoor and Ors. v. State of
Haryana and Ors. 1986 Suppl. SCC 584; Union of India v.
E
Tushar Rajan Mohanty 1994 (5) SCC 450, held inapplicable
~
1. 7. It is not correct to say that the validity of Section
,.
3 of the Validating_ Act, providing that a notification would
not be invalid on a ground that a declaration under
F
Section 6 of the Act, was published on the same date, on
which the notification under Section 4 of the Act was
published or any other day prior to the date of
publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The relevant date would be that of notification under
Section 4 of the Act or the notification of declaration G
under Section 6 of the Act and not the mere declaration
under Section 6 of the Act. [Para 44] (963-C-E]
Mohd. Ali and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1998 (9) sec
480; Khadim Hussain vs. State of UP. and Ors. 1976 (1) H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
SCC 843; Meerot Development Authority v. Satvir Singh 1996
-~-
A
(11) SCC 462; S.H. Rangappa v. State of Kamataka and Anr.
2002 (1) sec 538 - relied on
Eugenio Misquita and Ors. v. State of Goa and Ors.
,
B 1997(8) SCC 47; Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Makrand
Singh and Ors. 1995(2) SCC 497; Mohan Singh and Ors. v.
International Airport Authority of India and Ors. 1997(9) SCC
_A,
132; S.H. Rangappa v. State of Kamataka and Anr. 2002(1)
sec 538, distinguished
f
c
Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra and
Ors. 2002 (1) SCC 689, referred to.
1.8. The schemes of Ghaziabad Development
Authority and Meerut Development Authority have
D already been upheld by this Court in the earlier decisions.
The basic objective of the Validating Act was to protect
the scheme during the period 1984-89 only and
subsequently, _there has been no such case of
simultaneous notification in the State of Uttar Pradesh for
E the last two decades, as stated on behalf of the LOA. Even
in respect of Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-111, the
declaration u/s. 6 of the Act is published much after the
.__
publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
....
Section 17(4) proviso has to be read together with and
F
in the light of Section 3 of the Amending Act and not de
hors of each other in view of the statement of objects and
reasons of that Act. This Court ironed the creases in the
proviso added to Section 17(4) in Meerut Development
Authority case. In one of the appeals, the land owners
have already accepted the compensation, while in
G another matter, the title of the Housing Society itself has
been found to be infirm and not established as per the
findings of the High Court. It is obvious that registration
of the sale deed in respect of the Society is subsequent
to the notification u/s. 4 of the Act and, therefore,
H inconsequential. The agreements in favour of that Society

914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.
A
under Section 17 of the Act and on that account, the
whole exercise was bad. This question in the precise
form, was not raised before the High Court. These
documents were not the part of the High Court record.
Since the source, authentication and verification of those
B documents was not clear, these documents were not
liable to be considered. [Paras 49 and 50] (970-F-G; 971C-E]
.2.2. It cannot be said that where Section 5-A is
dispensed with u/s. 17(4) of the Act, two Sub-Sections,
C i.e., (3) and (3A) of Section 17 would not appl.y. By this,
the attempt is to dissect Sub-Section (4) in two parts,
first.ly, where Sub-Section (1) and (2) are applicable and·
secondly, where the enquiry u/s. 5-A is dispensed with.
That is not the import of the language. Section 17 has to
D be read in full. It plai,nly reads that where the possession
is taken with the aid of Section 17(2), the compensation
must fall in advance as per the provisions of Section 3A.
In fact, Section 3A has been brought on the legislature
with the sole purpose of providing a compensation for
E the possession taken. That is why 80% of the estimated
compensation is to be paid because even thereafter, the
award proceedings would go . on and the total
compensation would be decided upon. The attempt to
read that the payment of compensation is not required
F
where Section 5-A enquiry is dispensed with, would be
doing violence to the language, firstly, of Section 3A and
secondly, of Sub-Section (4) itself. The clear legal position
is that the dispensation of Section 5-A enquiry is only
and only to enable the State Government to take
G possession under Sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 17.
A third category cannot be created so as to avoid the
payment of compensation. [Para 50A] (972-A-F]
2.3. If fault is found with the whole acquisition
process on account of the non-payment of 80% of the
H
TIKA RAM &·ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
915
A.
compensation, then the further question would be as to A
whether the estimation of 80% of compensation is
correct or not. A further controversy can then be raised
\
by the landlords that what was paid was not 80% and
•
was short of 80% and, therefore, the acquisition should
be set at naught. Such extreme interpretation cannot be B
afforded because indeed u/s. 17 itself, the basic idea of
,,..
avoiding the enquiry u/s. 5-A is in view of the urgent need
~
on the part of the State Government for the land to be
acquired for any eventuality discovered by either SubSection (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. c
[Para 51] .[972-G-H, 973-A-B]
2.4. Even if the compensation is not paid or is short
of 80%, the acquisition would not suffer. Therefore, even
).
on the question as to whether in view of the admitted
D
capacity to offer, tender and pay the compensation under
sub-section (3) and (3A) of Section 17, the notification
-
under Section 17(4) becomes void, there is no necessity
of any reference. [Paras 46, 52 and 53] [967-E-F; 973-BC; 975-B)
E
Satendra Prasad Jain and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.
~
1993 (4) SCC 369; Pratap and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and
Ors. etc. etc. 1996 (3) SCC 1; P. Chinnanna v. State of A.P.
~
1994 (5) SCC 486; Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar
..
1995 (6) sec 31, relied on
F
Ill. Challenge under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
3.1. It is not correct to say that the provisions of the
Amending Act and also the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act like Section 17(4) are invalid on the test G
of Article 14 of the Constitution. Reading paragraph 14
of Meerut Development Authority case, in its correct
perspective would repel the argument that the provision
is arbitrary in any manner or has the effect of creating
impermissible classification. If the petitioners in Meerut H
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Development Authority case, did not specifically address
the Court on the question of Constitutional validity of the
Amending Act (as is being claimed by the appellants), it
L
will not be permissible for the petitioners to raise this
·-,
point which was admittedly not raised either in Ghaziabad
-
-..,,.
8
Development Authority case. or Meerut Development
Authority case, Petitioners would not be permitted to take
· such a course. There can be no question of Section 17(4)
...>..
proviso or the provisions of the Amending Act being
I
invalid in any way. The provisions in any manner are not
c arbitrary or making impermissible classifications or
suggesting invidious discrimination nor can the
provisions in the Amending Act can be termed as
"arbitrary" providing no guiding principles. [Paras 54, 55
and 56] (975-C-D; 976-F-H; 977-C-D]
D
State of.Orissa v: Gopal Chandrarath 1995 (6) SCC 243;
Bhubaneswar Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 1994
(6) SCC 77; Comorin Match Industries P. Ltd, v. State of
......
Tamil Nadu 1996 (4) SCC 281; Gouri Shankar Gauri and Ors.
v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1994 (1) sec 92, relied on.
E
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Jan Kalyan Samiti
Sheopur 1996 (2) SCC 365; Ghaziabad Development
-}.
' Authority vs. Jan Kalyan Samiti Sheopur 1996 (1) SCC 562;
~
MDA v. Satbir Singh 1996 (11) SCC 462; Delhi Cloth and
F
General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherji and Ors.
...
AIR 1978 SC 8, referred to
3.2. The contention that the contents in paragraph 14
of the judgment in Meerut Development Authority case,
holding that the provisions of the Amending Act are not
G limited to the two dates mentioned and can be applicable
even subsequently, results in creation of two classes and
the possible discrimination, is not acceptable. It will not
be necessary to go into that question as the present
appeals pertaining to Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-II
H
\
(
\ •
\
_J
...
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
917
are relating only to the period between 24.9.1984 and
A
11.1.1989. Further, even if, as held in Meerut Development
Authority case, it applied to the subsequent period, it
does not infringe Article 14. [Para 57] [977-E-G; 978-A-B]
3.3. The Validation Act did not confer any discretion
8
on the State Government to apply its provisions to a
particular scheme and then issue notifications. It was a
one time exercise for validating a particular scheme by
amending the Act which has already been found to be
valid in Meerut Development Authority case. Again
C
Ujariyaon Housing Scheme Part-Ill did not lapse because
of the decision of the Government. Since the award was
not made within the time prescribed by Section 11A of the
Act, it had the effect of lapsing the notifications.
Therefore, the State Government was left with no other
way and had to issue a fresh notification. In Ujariyaon
D
Housing Scheme Part-II, the award was made by the
Collector within the time and, therefore, those
notifications were not affected. [Para 58] [978-E-H;
979-A]
Amit Das v. State of Bihar 2000 (5) SCC 488; State of
UP and Anr. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. 1991
E
(4) SCC 139; Nirrna/ Jeet Kaur v. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Anr. 2004 (7) SCC 558; /CIC/ Bank and Anr. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. 2005 (6) SCC 404;
F
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik and Ors. 1988 (2) SCC 602; Zee
Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (4)
SCC 649; P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka 2002
(4) SCC 578; Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab 1995 (6) SCC
614; Isabella Johnson v. M.A. Susai 1991 (1) SCC 494; R.K.
G
Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar 1959 SCR 279, distinguished.
3.4. Sections 17(1), 17(1A), 17(3A) and 17(4) of the Act
and Section 2 of the UP Act No. VIII of 1974, as also the
UP Act No. 5 of 1991 are not violative of Articles 14, 19,
21, 39, 48, 48A and 300A for invidious discrimination.
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A There is no classification, much less any impermissible
,.__
classification and no group has been treated favourably
as against another group, refusing equal protection to
such group. [Para 60] (980-F-G; 981-C-D]
B
Lachman Das v. State of Bombay AIR 1952 SC 235;
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1951
SC 41; Anwar Ali Sarkar v. State of U.P. AIR 1952 SC 75;
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra AIR 1952 SC
.).
123; State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh AIR 1980 SC 319,
J
c distinguished
.
Kedar Nath Bajoria slo Ramjidas Bajoria v. State of West
Bengal 1954 SCR 30; R.K. Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar 1959
SCR 279 and In re: Special Courts Bills, 1978 1979 (1) SCC
380, referred to
..
D
3.5. Discretion upon the· application of law and the
-""-
power under Section 17 of the Act of doing away with
Section SA inquiry has to be exercised in a proper
.._
manner. However, there are clear guidelines provided u/
E s. 17(1) r/w Section 4 for understanding the concepts of
urgency and emergency. In this behalf, the criteria of
emergency as provided under Sub-Section (2) of Section
17 is separate and distinct from the criteria of urgency.
-~.
These two criteria provide clear guidelines and cannot be
..
F held as arbitrary. [Para 61] (981-F-H; 982-A]
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti vs. Makrand Singh and
Ors. 1995(2) SCC 497; State of U.P. v. Pista Devi 1986 (4)
sec 251, relied on
..
G
Suraj Mall Mohta and Company v. A. V. Visvanatha
Sastri and Anr. AIR 1954 SC 545, distinguished
+
Sarju Prasad Sahu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
AIR 1962 ALL 221; Ram Sevak v. State of UP Ors. AIR 1963
All 24; /shwarlal Girdharlal Joshi etc. v. State of Gujarat and
H
..:
,.,,, -
_(
.>-
(
•
-
/
_)..
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
919
Anr. AIR 1968 SC 870, referred to.
A
3.6. Merely because the decision of the Government
on question of urgency is not justiciable, it does not
mean that Section 17(4) of the Act is discriminatory. The
High Court has correctly held that Sub-Sections (1 ), (3A)
and (4) of Section 17 of the Act do not suffer from any 8
unconstitutionality on account of the alleged breach of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Sub-Sections (1)
(3A) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act do not suffer, as there
is no notice provided in those Sub-Sections before the c
possession is taken. [Para 62] [983-C-D, F; 984-C]
Matajog Dubey v. H.C. Bhari AIR 1956 SC 44; R.K.
Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar 1959 SCR 279; /shwarlal Girdharlal
Joshi etc. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR 1968 SC 870;
Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150, Maneka Gandhi D
v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180; Union of India v.
Tutsi Ram AIR 1985 SC 1416, relied on
IV. Issue of urgency and application of Section 17 of the E
Principal Act
4. The High Court has correctly come to the
conclusion that there was all the justification for invoking
the urgency clause and taking the possession for the
lands in question. It can not be ignored that this land was
F
urgently needed for housing. Large-scale development
and utilization of acquired land after the acquisition is
apparent on the face of the record. A number of houses
have been constructed, third party interests were created
in whose favour the plots were allotted and the High G
Court has also commented while disposing of the writ
petitions that the quashing of the notification at this stage
will prejudice the interests of the people for whom the
schemes were evolved. While considering as to whether
H
920
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the Government was justified in doing away with the
""-
inquiry under Section 5A, it must be noted that there are
no allegations of ma/a tides against the authority. In the
present case, the High Court has gone into the records
and has recorded categorical finding that there was
B sufficient material before the State Government and the
..__
State Government has objectively considered the issue
(:
of urgency. Even before this Court, there were no
allegations of mala tides. Therefore, it is not correct to say
;.._
L
that there was no urgency to justify dispensation of
. .,
c Section SA inquiry by applying the urgency clause.
Acquisitions in this case are of 1984-1985 and two
decades have passed thereafter. [Paras 63 and 64) [984-
.... -
l I
0--0; 985-A, B, D, HJ
,,
-o
Kishan Das and Ors. v. State of UP and Ors. 1995 (6)
SCC 240; State of U.P. v. Pista Devi 1986 (4) SCC 251,
~
relied on
Raja Anand Braha Shah v. State of U.P. AIR 1967 SC
1081; Narayan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 183;
E Kailashwati v. State of U.P. A_IR 1978 All 181; Deepak Pahwa
v. Lt. Governor of Delhi AIR 1984 SC 1721, referred to
r;-
V. Other issues on merit
. ,..
5. This Court will not go into the questions of facts
~
F like the non-publication of Sections 4 and 6 notifications.
Similar is the question raised about the land belonging
to the co-operative society and the release of the same.
The High Court judgment is absolutely correct in that
behalf. Even if the Government had taken a decision not
G to acquire the land belonging to the co-operative society
as far as possible, there is nothing wrong if such lands
+
were acquired. What is to be seen is the bona tides of the
Government behind the decision to acquire the lands. On
that account no fault can be found with the concerned
H notifications u/ss. 4 and 6. [Para 65) (986-B-E]
..__
•
"':
..
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
921
_,,,
6. As regards the question of possession, the Court A
"<
does not propose to go into the question of facts and
questions relating to the individual claims. When the
whole township is standing, this question goes to the
backdrop. In the face of Panchanama, which is on record,
the finding of the High Court that the possession was B
taken on 21.5.1985 is endorsed. [Paras 66 and 67] (986F, 987-C-D]
)..
.....
7. LOA also found fault with the Sale Deed in favour
t •
,.
of Pratap Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd.. It was urged c
'
that its claim was based on the Sale Agreement, which
was executed one day before the publication of Section·
4 Notification in the Gazette, i.e., 8.12.1984. It is admitted
case that the Sale Deed was registered on 22.1.1986,
which is clearly a date beyond the date of Section 4 D
>-
notification. If any purchases of the land are made after
the publication of Section 4(1) notification, landlords in
this case would not get any right or entitlement to
•
question the validity of the title of the State based on the
acquisition. Obviously, the claim of this Society is on the
{
basis of the Agreement of Sale dated 7 .4.1983. The High E
Court was correct in holding that the Society had
purchasedthe land after the issuance of notification. The
)I
policy to give back 25% of the acquired land to the co-
,j
operative societies, even if there is one, would not be
applicable to the Society in question. Therefore, it is not F
acceptable that Pratap Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd.
Should be given back 25% of the land acquired, which
is again not possible in view of the township having
come up. [Paras 68 and 69] [987-0-H; 988-E-G]
U.P. Jal Nigam v. Katra Properties Ltd. 1996 (3) SCC G
+
124; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1996
(11) sec 698, relied on
H
\
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADD~.) S.C.R.
.l
A
Case Law Reference:
.... _
1989 (1) sec 591
Referred to.
Paras 9, 13, 19,
r
23 and 40
....
1996 (11) sec 462
Relied on.
Paras 10,11,
B
17,19, 25,30,
34,36,39 and
54
_.l.
1996 (1) sec 562
Relied on.
Paras 11,17,
...
c
19,30 and 39
1996(2) sec 365
Relied on.
Paras 11, 17,
19, 30 and 39
1976 (1) sec 843
Relied on.
Para 15
D
AIR 1952 SC 75
Distinguished
Paras 18 and
_...(_
25AIR 1980 SC 319 Distinguished
Paras 18 and 60
,_
2003 (6) sec 186
Referred to.
Para 20
E
2002 (7) sec 213
Referred to.
Para 20
2005 (2) sec 409
Referred to
Para 20
. 2003 (4) sec 112
Referred to
Para 20
-;<-
2002 (3) sec 533
Referred to
Paras 20 and 21 .
..
F
'
1992 (2) sec 494
Referred to
Para 20
1997 (8) sec 12
Referred to
Para 20
1986 (3) sec 91
Referred to
Para 20
,_
;~
G
1990 (1) sec 211
Referred to
Para 20
+
AIR 1955 SC 830
Referred to
Para 20
1986 (4) sec 251
Relied on
Paras 21 and 63
r
H
}--
l
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
923
_.,.,,
1993 (4) sec 369
Relied on
Paras 21, 52
A
and 53
2003 (2) sec 577
Referred to.
Para 21
2005 (7) sec 627
Referred to.
Para 21
2004 (8) sec 14
Referred to.
Para 21
B
).
1952 SCR 435
Referred to.
Para 25
,.
1954 SCR 30
Referred to.
Paras 25 and 60
'"""
1959 SCR 279
Referred to.
Paras 25 and 60 c
Distinguished Para 60
Relied on.
Para 62
_.\.
1919 (1) sec 380
Referred to.
Para 25
D
1995 (6) sec 240
Relied on.
Paras 27 and 63
1914 (2) sec 501
Referred to.
Para 27
..
1998 (6) sec 1
Referred to.
Para 27
E
1996 (3) sec 1
Referred to.
Para 27
"'
AIR 1987 Allahabad 113 Referred to.
Para 29
"*
1963 (2) SCR 775
Referred to.
Para 30
Relied on.
Para 37
F
--
1996 (7) sec 637
Referred to.
Para 30
1995 (6) sec 16
Referred to.
Para 33,40
2004(3) sec 48
Referred to.
Para 33,40
G
~
2003 (5) sec 298
Referred to.
Para 33,40
1978 (2) sec so
Referred to.
Para 33,40
1975 Supp. sec 1
Referred to.
Para 33,40
H
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL} $.C.R.
-
A 2004(12) sec 588
Referred to.
Para 33,~
')-'-
1976 (4) sec 150
Referred to.
Para 33,40
1910 (1) sec 509
Referred to.
Para 33,40
B
1998 (9) sec 480
Relied on.
Para 37 and 40
1969 (2) sec 283
Referred to.
Para 40
1989 (3) sec 488
Distinguished
Para 40
.l.
•
1983 (2) sec 33
Held inapplicable Para 41
c
1986 Suppl. SCC 584 Held inapplicable Para 41
1994 (5) sec 450
Held inapplicable Para 41,43
2002 (1) sec 689
Referred to.
Para 44
D 1997 (8) sec 47
Distinguished
Para 44
~
1995 (2) sec 497
Distinguished
Para 44'
Relied on.
Para 61
E
1997 (9) sec 132
Distinguished
Para 45
2002(1) sec 538
Distinguished
Para 45
1999 (4) sec 11
Relied on
· Para 45
-It ..
2005 (2) sec 673
Relied on.
Para 47
F
1996 (3) sec 1
Relied on.
Para 53
1994 (5) sec 486
Relied on.
Para 53
1995 (6) sec 31
Relied on.
Para 53
G
1995 (6) sec 243
Relied on.
Para 55·
+
1994 (6) sec 11
Relied on.
Para 55
1996 (4) sec 2s1
Relied on.
Para·ss
H
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
925
_,,.,
1994 (1) sec 92
Relied on.
Para 55
A
2000 (5) sec 488
Distinguished
Para 59
~
'
1991 (4) sec 139
Distinguished
Para 59
2004 (7) sec 558
Distinguished
Para 59
B
2005 (6) sec 404
Distinguished
Para 59
)..
1988 (2) sec 602
Distinguished
Para 59
"
2005 (4) sec 649
Distinguished
Para 59
c
2002 (4) sec 578
Distinguished
Para 59·
1995 (6) sec 614
Distinguished
Para 59
1991 (1) sec 494
Distinguished
Para 59
>
D
AIR 1952 SC 235
Distinguished
Para 60
AIR 1951 SC 41
Distinguished
Para 60
AIR 1952 SC 123
Distinguished
Para 60
AIR 1962 ALL 221
Referred to.
Para 61
E
AIR 1963 All 24
Referred to.
Para 61
~
..I
AIR 1968 SC 870
Relied on .
Para 62
AIR 1954 SC 545
Distinguished
Para 62
F
AIR 1956 SC 44
Relied on.
Para 62
AIR 1970 SC 150
Relied on.
Para 62
AIR 1978 SC 597
Relied on.
Para 62
AIR 1986 SC 180
Relied on.
Para 62
G
AIR 1985 SC 1416
Relied on.
Para 62
AIR 1967 SC 1081
Referred to.
Para 64
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
AIR 1977 SC 183
Referred to.
Para 64
¥_
AIR 1978 All. 181
Referred to.
Para 64
AIR 1984 SC 1721
Referred to.
Para 64
1996 (3) sec 124
Relied on.
Para 68
"
B
1996 (11) sec 698
Relied on.
Para 68
~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
..
2650-2652 of 1998.
c
·· From the Judgment & Order dated 40.3.1998 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) in Lucknow
in Writ Petition No. 2220 (UA) of 1996, 3020 (UA) of 1996 and
16 (UA) of 1996.
D
--4.._
WITH
.,
C.A. Nos. 3162, 3176, 3415, 3561, 3597, 3923, 3939, 3645,
E
3691, 5346, 4995-4996 of 1998 & 2116-2118, 2139, 2121,
2113 of 1999, SLP(C) 23551 of 2009 arising out of CG No.
1540 of 1999.
~'f
R.N. Trivedi, Rakesh Kr. Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, Shail
..
F
Kumar Dwivedi, D.K. Arora, Addi. A.G., Pramod Agarwal,
Shweta Garg, Ashish Gopal Garg, Qamar Ahmad (NP), Arvind
Kumar Shukla, Ashutosh Pathak, N.D. Peter, lrshad Ahmad,
Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Navin Prakash, Gaurav Aggarwal, B.K.
Prasad, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Abhishek Chaudhary, Manoj Kr.
G
Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra, Manish Kumar, Prateek Dwivedi,
G.V. Rao, Kamlendra Mishra, Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli,
Charu Singhal (for Manoj Swarup & Co.), Anil Kumar Sangal,
+
Deba Prasad Mohanty, C.D. Singh, Vairagya Vardhan Dubey,
Arvind Varma, Malvika Trivedi, T. Mahipal, C.S. Ashri, E.C.
Vidya Sagar for the appearing parties.
H
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
927
_y
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.
Background of Appeals
1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 26508
2652 of 1998, 3162 of 1998, 3176 of 1998, 3415 of 1998,
).
3561 of 1998, 3597 of 1998, 3923 of 1998, 3939 of 1998,
"'
3645 of 1998, 3691 of 1998, 5346 of 1998, 2116-2118 of
1999, 2139 of 1999, 2121of1999, 2113of1999, 4995-4996
of 1998 and SLP(C) No ... (CC) 1540 of 1999. All these c
appeals and the Special Leave Petition challenge a common
judgment passed by Allahabad High Court, disposing of several
Writ Petitions. The High Court has granted certificate granting
leave to file appeal. These Writ Petitions were filed covering
_...
various subjects. Basically, in some of the Writ Petitions, D
constitutionality of provisions of Sections 17(1 ), 17(1 )(A),
17(3)(A), 17(4) and proviso to Section 17(4) of the Land
..
Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
alongwith Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. VIII of 1994 (hereinafter
called 'the Validating Act' for short) was challenged, so also E
constitutionality of Sections 3(A), 3(8), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the
Act was also challenged. In that set of Writ Petitions, basically,
-4
the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and the
~
award dated 25.2.1987 were in challenge.
2. In some other Writ Petitions, besides the challenge to
F
the above mentioned provisions, some other notifications dated
~
30.12.1995, 25.1.1992, 4.1.1992 and 15.12.1992 under
Section 4(1} of the Act, as well as, the declaration under
Section 6 of the Act were in challenge.
3. In some Writ Petitions, the petitioners prayed for a Writ
G
of mandamus, commanding the State of U.P. to frame
necessary rules and regulations in respect of Sections 11, 11A and 17(3}(A) of the Act pertaining to the functioning of the
Land Acquisition Officer and also sought for an injunction
H
928
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A restraining the authorities from interfering with the possession
y_
of the Writ Petitioners' land and to comply with the provisions
under Sections 3(1A), 3(8), 4(2), 5 and 9(1) of the Act. They
have also prayed for a disciplinary action against the Station
Officer, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.
B
4. These are the three sets of Writ Petitions, which came
to be disposed of by the High Court by a common judgment.
_\
5. In one of the Writ Petitions, bearing No. 16(UA) of 1996
..
filed by one Ram Bharosey, award dated 25.2.1987 which was
c validated in pursuance of Section 2 of the Validating Act, was
in challenge.
6. In still another set of Writ Petitions, Pratap Housing
Cooperative Society and some industries prayed for exempting
D their land from the land acquisition proceedings. In these Writ
Petitions, the Writ Petitioners had contended that they had
purchased their land from tenure holders for Cooperative
Societies for providing land to their members and construction
of the houses. The Writ Petitioners contended that some being
E industries were manufacturing certain articles and their running
business had come to the standstill because of the land
acquisition activities.
_,
7. In one set of Writ Petitions, it was found that notifications
...
were issued under Section 4 and sub Section (4) of Section
F · 17 of the Act, simultaneously with the declaration under Section
6 of the Act. In these cases, the possession was taken by
Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as
~
'LOA' for short), so also the award was passed on 25.2.1987.
G
8. In another set of Writ Petitions, wherein the leading Writ
Petition was W.P. No. 2220 (UA) of 1996 filed by Tika Ram &
+
Anr., the notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 17 and
declaration under Section 6 of the Act simultaneously. However,
they were treated to be lapsed and a fresh notification came
H to be issued on 30.12.1991 under Section 4(1) and 17 of the
..
.....
+
TIKA RAM & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
929
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Act. Even in these Writ Petitions, the awards were passed and
A
the concerned persons were asked to receive payment of 80%
compensation by a general notice. In short, the challenge
generally was to the land acquired at the instance of LOA.
Besides this challenge to the provisions of the Act, as also to
the provisions of the Validating Act, the Writ Petitioners have
B
claimed the non-compliance with the essential provisions of
Section 4 and 6 of the Act. They have also challenged the
urgency clause made applicable to the various land
acquisitions. On merits, it has been suggested that there has
been no proper publication in the newspapers or at the c
convenient places of the locality as required under Section 4(1)
and Section 6 of the Act.