Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. In conclusion, I find that the entire controvery revolves around the question whether the State has rightly invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act and dispensed with enquiry under Section 5 of the Act. The onus would be heavy on the State to indicate that it has discharged its function as a sovereign function, besides, public purpose has also to be considered in the light of the fact whether the land to be acquired was essential for the public purpose. I find that although the Corporation has deliberated the question of present disputed land from 24.11.2011, two years delay has occasioned in initiating the proceedings. The sanction by the Collector Ujjain only on 28.11.2013 by itself does not justify invoking of the urgency clause especially in the light of the fact that the enquiry under Section 5 has also been dispensed with. Moreover the award by the Land Acquisition Officer has already been passed on 24.04.2015 has to be considered. Undoubtedly, the Simhastha is going to start on 22nd of April 2016 and to continue only up to 21st of May 2016 and it schedule is only a couple of months away. The important factum which is actively considered by this Court is the fact that the Simhastha occurs only once in 12 years at Ujjain and lasts only for a period of 30 days and thus in the present; the circumstance which assumes more importance is the fact that Section 5 of the Act has not been invoked and the enquiry has been dispensed with. The extraordinary sovereign power of the State to acquire land is undoubted but the satisfaction of the urgency clause in the present circumstances is dis-satisfactory. Similarly the public purpose of acquiring the present disputed land is meant for, widening the road and obviously under usual circumstances there is already an existing road admeasuring 33 to 40 feet and the need of the city Ujjain is ordinarily satisfied. If the land was being acquired on account of public exigency of Simhastha then proper procedure has to be followed. The individual rights and civil rights of present petitioners regarding their disputed properties cannot be trampled upon and abdicated by Government in this fashion. Compulsory compensation has undoubtedly provided as sovereign function and the State is entitled to its dominion over any portion of the soil of the State. However, if the procedure is prescribed then uncontroverted legal prinicple is that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certian way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. (Relied on Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh and another Civil Appeal No.1193 of 2012 (by the Supreme Court). I find in the present circumstances that the urgency clause has been wrongly invoked. Whereas the respondents have deliberated and pondered over the required acquisition; no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to represent their cases. The proposal was under active consideration since in the year 2011 and the notification was issued only on 07.02.2013.