Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DERA PHALAULI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS .

Decided
24 July 1979
Judges listed
N.L. UNTWALIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 93 · 1979 INSC 125
Also cited as
  • (1979) 4 SCC 485 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

UNTWALIA, J. In this appeal filed by certificate, several points have l;een urged by learned counsel for the appellant. We do not consider it necessary either to state all the points or discuss them as none of them except .one has got any substance. The point of substance which i\1 our opinion must suco~ed in this appeal is as to whether even on the face of the Notification issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), an Order under Sectiou 17 ( 4) dispensing with the compliance with the provisions of Section SA was valiuly mad·~. The paragraph of the Notification which incorporated apparently the order exercising the power under Sub-Section ( 4) of Section 17 of the Act reads as follows :-

pp. 93–94, margin G

"Further in exercise of the powers under the said Act, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to direct that action under Section 17 shall be taken ill thls case on the grounds of urgency and provisions of section SA will 'not apply iu regard lo this acquisition."

p. 94, margin A

It is to be clearly understood that under Sub-Section ( 4), the appropriate Government may direct that the provision of Section SA shall not apply where in the opinion of the State Government, the provisions of Sub-Sectieh (1) or Sub-Section(2) are applicable, otherwise not. For making the provisions of Sub-Section (1) applicable, two things must be satisfied that the land in respect of which the urgency provision is being applied is waste or arable and secondly that there is an urgency to proceed in the matter of ta1dng immediate posses5ion and so the right of the owner of the land for filing an objection nnder Section SA should not be made available to him. In the portion of the Notification which we have extracted above, it is neither mentioned that the land is waste or arable nor has it been stated that in the opinion of the Government, there was any urgency to take recourse to the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. A direction to the Collector has been given to take action under Section 17 on the ground of urgency but this is not a legal and complete fulfilment of the requirement of the law. It is to be remembered that the right of a person having auy interest in the property to file an objection under Section SA of the Act should not be interfered with in such a casual or cavalier manner as has been done in this case.

p. 94, margin B

For tke reasons •lated above, we allow this appeal set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's writ Petition, allow the writ Petition and strike down that portion of the Notificatipn issued on 23-8-1967 under Section 4 of the Act which directed the exercise of power under Section 17. The authorities if so advised m""' proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity to the appel-' '

p. 94, margin E

-- Iunt of filing their objection under Section SJ\. ·

p. 94, margin E

Since the other side has not appeared, there is no order as to costs. N.V.K.

p. 94, margin G

Appeal allowed.

p. 94, margin G