Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHIUDDIN MASOOD

with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. However, considering the chronological list of dates and events and the object and purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, we are of the opinion that the High Court has materially erred in holding that invocation of the urgency clause was bad. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there was a time gap of only three months between the notification under Section 4 and notification under Section 6 respectively of the Act. 6.2 Even there was not much delay in considering the request made by the ITBP to acquire the land. Right from the very beginning the ITBP requested to acquire the land urgently as the land was urgently required by the ITBP to establish Battalion headquarter due to increase in Counter Insurgency Operations, Law and order duties of ITBP and Disaster Management Operations. It is required to be noted that for establishing such Battalion headquarter a large chunk of land approximately 72 to 75 acres of land was required. Such a huge land was required to be first identified at suitable places. Therefore, some time is bound to be consumed between the proposal and issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The said aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court. Therefore, merely that some time had been taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual Section 4 notification, the High Court is not justified in observing that there was no urgency at all and/or there were no grounds to invoke the urgency clause. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in observing and holding that invocation of the urgency clause was bad. We are more than satisfied that there was a real urgency and therefore the urgency clause and Section 17 of the Act was rightly invoked dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2, referred to hereinabove, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly in the relied upon cases the acquisitions were either for private parties and/or companies and in the present case the acquisition was for establishing ITBP Battalion headquarter. 6.3 It is also required to be noted that on the land in question total admeasuring 28.1398 hectares (19.7548 + 8.3850 hectares = 28.1398 hectares) there is a development on 90 to 95% of the land acquired and 90 to 95% of the land has been put to use by the ITBP. It is also required to be noted that so far as respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein are concerned, out of the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders of plot nos. 2348 area 1.138 hectares, 2353 area 1.2800 hectares and 2354 area 0.2970 hectare only. As observed hereinabove, the total land acquired was 28.1398 hectares and other land owners have not questioned the acquisition. Therefore also, the High Court ought not to have set aside the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Act which were with respect to the acquisition of large chunk of land admeasuring 28.1398 hectares, which was not under challenge by the other land owners except respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein – original writ petitioners. 6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that there is a non-compliance of Section 17(4) of the Act as 80% of the estimated amount of compensation was not deposited is concerned, at this stage, counter affidavit filed by the Tehsildar before the High Court is required to be considered. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that after the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, the ITBP has deposited 10% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.3026675.00 vide treasury challan dated 17.06.2009, 70% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.23674225.00 vide treasury challan dated 05.01.2009 and rest of 20% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.6053350.00 vide treasury challan dated 22.01.2010. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that notice dated 16.03.2010 was issued to the tenure holders to take 80% of the estimated amount of compensation but they did not come to take the compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a non-compliance of Section 17(4) of the Act and the tenure holders/land owners were not paid the 80% estimated amount of compensation as required. 6.5 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court is not justified in setting aside the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Act and/or observing and holding that the invocation of Section 17 of the Act and urgency clause was bad. 7. Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that they have not been paid any compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove, in fact, ITBP had deposited the estimated amount of compensation in the year 2009/2010 itself and the land owners/tenure holders were served with the notice to withdraw and/or take 80% of the estimated amount of compensation but they refused to take the compensation. Therefore, thereafter it is not open for the original writ petitioners to make the grievance that they have not been paid any compensation. Still, it will be open to them to withdraw the amount of compensation. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the year 2010 itself, final award directing adjudgment of the compensation to the tune of Rs.63309176.41 inclusive of solatium was published before that writ petition was filed and compensation was not accepted.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length6.1 We have gone through and considered in detail the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We have also considered the chronological dates and events leading to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and thereafter issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act invoking the urgency clause. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held invocation of urgency clause and invocation of Section 17 of the Act as bad by observing that there were no justifiable reasons to invoke the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. However, considering the chronological list of dates and events and the object and purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired, we are of the opinion that the High Court has materially erred in holding that invocation of the urgency clause was bad. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there was a time gap of only three months between the notification under Section 4 and notification under Section 6 respectively of the Act6.2 Even there was not much delay in considering the request made by the ITBP to acquire the land. Right from the very beginning the ITBP requested to acquire the land urgently as the land was urgently required by the ITBP to establish Battalion headquarter due to increase in Counter Insurgency Operations, Law and order duties of ITBP and Disaster Management Operations. It is required to be noted that for establishing such Battalion headquarter a large chunk of land approximately 72 to 75 acres of land was required. Such a huge land was required to be first identified at suitable places. Therefore, some time is bound to be consumed between the proposal and issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The said aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court. Therefore, merely that some time had been taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual Section 4 notification, the High Court is not justified in observing that there was no urgency at all and/or there were no grounds to invoke the urgency clause. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in observing and holding that invocation of the urgency clause was bad. We are more than satisfied that there was a real urgency and therefore the urgency clause and Section 17 of the Act was rightly invoked dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2, referred to hereinabove, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly in the relied upon cases the acquisitions were either for private parties and/or companies and in the present case the acquisition was for establishing ITBP Battalion headquarter6.3 It is also required to be noted that on the land in question total admeasuring 28.1398 hectares (19.7548 + 8.3850 hectares = 28.1398 hectares) there is a development on 90 to 95% of the land acquired and 90 to 95% of the land has been put to use by the ITBP. It is also required to be noted that so far as respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein are concerned, out of the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders of plot nos. 2348 area 1.138 hectares, 2353 area 1.2800 hectares and 2354 area 0.2970 hectare only. As observed hereinabove, the total land acquired was 28.1398 hectares and other land owners have not questioned the acquisition. Therefore also, the High Court ought not to have set aside the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Act which were with respect to the acquisition of large chunk of land admeasuring 28.1398 hectares, which was not under challenge by the other land owners except respondent nos. 1 & 2 herein – original writ4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that there is a non-compliance of Section 17(4) of the Act as 80% of the estimated amount of compensation was not deposited is concerned, at this stage, counter affidavit filed by the Tehsildar before the High Court is required to be considered. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that after the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, the ITBP has deposited 10% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.3026675.00 vide treasury challan dated 17.06.2009, 70% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.23674225.00 vide treasury challan dated 05.01.2009 and rest of 20% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs.6053350.00 vide treasury challan dated 22.01.2010. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that notice dated 16.03.2010 was issued to the tenure holders to take 80% of the estimated amount of compensation but they did not come to take the compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a non-compliance of Section 17(4) of the Act and the tenure holders/land owners were not paid the 80% estimated amount of compensation as required6.5 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the High Court is not justified in setting aside the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 respectively of the Act and/or observing and holding that the invocation of Section 17 of the Act and urgency clause was bad7. Now so far as submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that they have not been paid any compensation is concerned, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove, in fact, ITBP had deposited the estimated amount of compensation in the year 2009/2010 itself and the land owners/tenure holders were served with the notice to withdraw and/or take 80% of the estimated amount of compensation but they refused to take the compensation. Therefore, thereafter it is not open for the original writ petitioners to make the grievance that they have not been paid any compensation. Still, it will be open to them to withdraw the amount of compensation. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the year 2010 itself, final award directing adjudgment of the compensation to the tune of Rs.63309176.41 inclusive of solatium was published before that writ petition was filed and compensation was not accepted.