UNION OF INDIA & Anr. v. MOHIUDDIN MASOOD & Ors.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss.5A, 6, 17 – Request made by ITBP for acquisition of land for establishing Battalion Headquarter of ITBP in view of increase in counter Insurgency Operations, Law and Order duties of ITBP, VVIP security duties and Disaster Management Operations – Urgent acquisition of land – High Court held that there were no justifiable reasons to invoke the urgency clause and to dispense with the enquiry u/s.5A of the Act – On appeal, held: For establishing 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 – Some time is bound to be consumed between the proposal and issuance of the notification under s.4 of the Act – The said aspect was not at all considered by the High Court – Therefore, merely that some time was taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual s.4 notification, High Court was not justified in observing that there was no urgency at all and/or there were no grounds to invoke the urgency clause – There was a real urgency and, therefore, urgency clause and s.17 was rightly invoked dispensing with the enquiry under s.5A of the Act. Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition of large chunk of land for establishing ITBP Battalion Headquarters – So far as respondent nos.1 and 2 original writ petitioners were concerned, out of the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders of area 1.138 hectares, 1.2800 hectares and 0.2970 hectare only – The total land acquired was 28.1398 hectares and other land owners did not question the acquisition – Therefore, High Court ought not to have set aside the notifications under ss.4 and 6 respectively which were not under challenge by the other land owners except respondent nos.1 and 2. 696 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. MOHIUDDIN MASOOD AND OTHERS 697 Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s.17(4) – Non-compliance of s.17(4) alleged – In the counter affidavit of Tehsildar, it was specifically stated that after the notification under s.4 of the Act was issued, the ITBP 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 was not open for the original writ petitioners to make the grievance that they were not paid any compensation – Therefore, it cannot be said that there was non- compliance of s.17(4) of the Act. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court 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. 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. 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. Therefore, merely that some time was taken in identifying the land and in issuing actual Section 4 notification, the High Court was not justified in observing that there was no urgency at all and/or there were no grounds to invoke the urgency clause. [Paras 6.1, 6.2] [704-D-G]

#2. On the land in question total admeasuring 28.1398 hectares, there was 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. So far as respondent nos. 1 and 2 were concerned, out of the total land acquired, they were the owners/tenure holders of A B C D E F G H 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R. plot nos. 2348 area 1.138 hectares, 2353 area 1.2800 hectares and 2354 area 0.2970 hectare only. 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 and 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 and 2 original writ petitioners. [Para 6.3] [705-C-E]

#3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tehsildar before the High Court, it was 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 by treasury challan dated 17.06.2009, 70% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs. 23674225.00 by treasury challan dated 05.01.2009 and rest of 20% of estimated compensation amounting to Rs. 6053350.00 by 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. [Para 6.4] [705-F-H; 706-A]