Case: Mansoor Khan &amp; Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Others

are mentioning below only the relevant ones:(1) That proceedings under the Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam sanctioning the "Kairaili Bhoomi Vikas Yojua, Allahabad" are ultra vires as no previous permission was obtained to the said scheme under the mandatory ,provisions of Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 before undertaking the same, as the status of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad is nothing more than that of person being a body corporate as laid down in Section 3 (ii) of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam 1965 (U. P. Act No. 1 of 1966).(2) That the scheme was not sanctioned within six months from the date of the receipt of objections.(3) That there was no urgency for applying Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, even before the representation under Section 49 of the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Adhiniyam had been considered.Though as many as 11 grounds have been raised in the petition before the High Court and 8 in petition of appeal in this Court, as we consider the rest of the points as wholly without substance it is unnecessary to refer to them.Point 13. Under Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, l958, no person shall undertake or carry out the development of any site in any regulated area or erect, re-erect or make any material change in any building or snake or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to a road in such area except in accordance with the directions, if any, issued under this Act and with previous permission of the prescribed Authority in writing. It is admitted that the area proposed to be acquired is a regulated area.We do not see any substance in the contention that as no sanction under this section had been taken the acquisition proceedings are ultra vires. This section is intended to prevent haphazard development of regulated areas and cannot apply where a Board like the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad frames schemes for the express purpose of regulated development. The acts mentioned in that section have not yet even begun and even if they are so begun there may be room for objecting to those acts without complying with its provisions but it cannot have any relevance to the proceedings for acquiring land for a scheme which may perhaps in due course lead to such acts being done. It is at that stage, if at all, that that section ought to be relied upon if it is contravened.4. Furthermore, the Act is a self-contained Act with all the necessary provisions. Indeed where it considers necessary it has even amended earlier Acts as is seen from S. 55which mentions the amendments to which the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be subject in so far as it applies to the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Act. If the intention were that the framing of any scheme was to be subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, the Act would have specifically said so.In the absence of any such provision, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1966 would have to be given full effect to. Moreover, this is a special Act whose provisions will take effect in preference to the provisions of a general Act like the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act of l958. We hold that there is no substance in this contention.Point 25. The fact that the scheme was not sanctioned within six months from the date of inviting objections cannot make the scheme illegal or ultra vires. Even S. 31 merely provides that "the Board may, so far as may be, within six months........ sanction it ". So the period of six months within which the scheme has to be sanctioned is not an absolute limit. The provision regarding the scheme being sanctioned within six months is purely directory and not mandatory. The scheme is, therefore, valid.Point 36. The provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 leave it absolutely to the discretion of the appropriate government in cases of urgency to direct the Collector to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes even though no award has " been made. There is no dispute that these lands are arable lands. So, the question whether there is urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the appropriate government. Under subsection (4) of that section in the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply) One of the modifications to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made by S. 55 of the U. P. Act l of 1966 is that the provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be inapplicable in relation to any land proposed to be acquired under any housing or improvement scheme notified in the Official Gazette under Section 28 or under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 31.It is, therefore, obvious that the Legislature has specifically applied its mind to the question whether an inquiry under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was necessary and dispensed with it in the case of schemes undertaken under the provisions of that Act. We do not see what relevance the power of the State Government under S. 49 of the Act to call for and examine the records of the Board relating to any housing or improvement scheme and modify, annul or remitting for re-consideration has to the power to take possession of the land under provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. Furthermore, this scheme being sanctioned by the Government itself there is no room for exercise of the powers under S. 49.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is admitted that the area proposed to be acquired is a regulated area.We do not see any substance in the contention that as no sanction under this section had been taken the acquisition proceedings are ultra vires. This section is intended to prevent haphazard development of regulated areas and cannot apply where a Board like the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad frames schemes for the express purpose of regulated development. The acts mentioned in that section have not yet even begun and even if they are so begun there may be room for objecting to those acts without complying with its provisions but it cannot have any relevance to the proceedings for acquiring land for a scheme which may perhaps in due course lead to such acts being done. It is at that stage, if at all, that that section ought to be relied upon if it is contravened.4. Furthermore, the Act is aAct with all the necessary provisions. Indeed where it considers necessary it has even amended earlier Acts as is seen from S. 55which mentions the amendments to which the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be subject in so far as it applies to the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Act. If the intention were that the framing of any scheme was to be subject to the provisions of Section 6 of the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, the Act would have specifically said so.In the absence of any such provision, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act 1 of 1966 would have to be given full effect to. Moreover, this is a special Act whose provisions will take effect in preference to the provisions of a general Act like the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act of l958. We hold that there is no substance in this contention.The fact that the scheme was not sanctioned within six months from the date of inviting objections cannot make the scheme illegal or ultra vires. Even S. 31 merely provides that "the Board may, so far as may be, within six months........ sanction it ". So the period of six months within which the scheme has to be sanctioned is not an absolute limit. The provision regarding the scheme being sanctioned within six months is purely directory and not mandatory. The scheme is, therefore, valid.The provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 leave it absolutely to the discretion of the appropriate government in cases of urgency to direct the Collector to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes even though no award has " been made. There is no dispute that these lands are arable lands. So, the question whether there is urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the appropriate government. Under subsection (4) of that section in the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government the provisions of(1) or subsection (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply) One of the modifications to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 made by S. 55 of the U. P. Act l of 1966 is that the provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be inapplicable in relation to any land proposed to be acquired under any housing or improvement scheme notified in the Official Gazette under Section 28 or under clause (a) of(3) of Section 31.It is, therefore, obvious that the Legislature has specifically applied its mind to the question whether an inquiry under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was necessary and dispensed with it in the case of schemes undertaken under the provisions of that Act. We do not see what relevance the power of the State Government under S. 49 of the Act to call for and examine the records of the Board relating to any housing or improvement scheme and modify, annul or remitting forhas to the power to take possession of the land under provisions of S. 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. Furthermore, this scheme being sanctioned by the Government itself there is no room for exercise of the powers under S. 49.