- (1.) Leave granted. C. A. No. 12122/95 @ S.L.P. (C)No. 4896/93. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated February 5,1993 by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 15377 of 1983. the appellantS are owners of the lands in plot No. 16 of an extent of 5 bighas 6 biswas and 14 biswas respectively in village Bairam Nagar, Parganas, Nahatur, Tahsil Dhampur, District Bijnore. These lands along with other lands were notified by publication in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short. 'the Act')on July 23, 1983 and the declaration under Section 6 was also published simultaneously dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A. The appellants challenged the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the exercise of the power given under S. 17(1) read with Section 17(4)dispensing the inquiry under Section 5-A. Three contentions were raised and negatived by the Division Bench. The first contention was that since the lands are not waste or parable lands, notification under Section 17(4) is invalid. Secondly, it was contended that dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A is not justifiable as there is no urgency to take possession even though the land was acquired for providing houses to Scheduled Castes (for short, Dalits). Thirdly, it was contended that on account of the acquisition, the appellants will be deprived of their land which is the only source of their livelihood violating Art. 21 of the Constitution. Thus this appeal by special leave. Shri R. K. Jain their learned senior counsel reiterated with added vehemence highlighting that there was pre and postnotification delay of more than three years. The proposal was put up in 1979 and the notification was approved in February but published in April 30, 1983 which would show that the urgency is not such which does not brook the delay of 30 days in conducting inquiry under Section 5-A. Right to conduct an inquiry under Section 5-A is valuable right and minimal safeguard to the owner and it would not be abrogated by exercising power of invoking urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act. He contended that in all the acquisitions for housing purpose conducting inquiry under Section 5-A should be exceptional and only in rare cases like those covered by Section 17(2). In support thereof he placed strong reliance on the holding of this Court in Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 SCR 763 : (AIR 1977 SC 183). Acquisition of the land deprives the owner of his source of livelihood enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution which cannot be deprived by denuding the owner of the means of livelihood, viz., the land by resting to compulsory acquisition.
(2.) It is found as a fact that the houses put up by the appellants do not form part of the agricultural lands. Section 17(1A) as amended by the U.P. State Legislature provides power to take possession under lands other than waste or arable land, where the land is acquired for or in connection with sanitary improvements of any kind or planned development. It would, therefore, be clear that the State Government is statutorily empowered to exercise the power under Section 17(4). When the Government forms an opinion that it is necessary to require immediate possession of the land for building houses for the Dalits, it forms the opinion of urgency to take immediate possession for the said purpose. Accordingly it is entitled to direct dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5-A and publish the declaration under Section 6 after the date of the publication of Section 4(1)notification. Thereafter under sub-section(1)of Section 17 the Land Acquisition Officer, after service of notice under Section 9 and expiry of 15 days therefrom, becomes entitled to take possession of land to proceed with the public purpose. The question therefore is whether the Government would be justified in dispensing the inquiry under Section 5-A.
(3.) It is settled law that the opinion of urgency formed by the appropriate Government to take immediate possession is a subjective conclusion based on the material before it and it is entitled to great weight unless it is vitiated by mala fides or colourable exercise of power. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "every one has the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family including food, clothing housing medical care and necessary social services." Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right, 1966 laid down that State Parties to the Covenant recognise. "the right to every one to an adequate standard of living for, clothing housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions." The State parties will take appropriate steps to ensure realisation of this right. In P. G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat (1995)2 JT (SC) 373 : (1995 AIR SCW 1540)a Bench of three Judges of this Court considering the mandate of human right to shelter read it into Article 19(1)(e) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India to guarantee right to residence and settlement. Protection of life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses within its ambit the right to shelter to enjoy the meaningful right to life. The Preamble to the Indian Constitution assures to every citizen social and economic justice and equity of status and of opportunity and dignity of person so as to fasten fraternity among all sections of society in an integrated Bharat. Article 39(b) enjoins the State that ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to promote welfare of the people by securing social and economic justice to the weaker sections of the society to minimize inequality in income and endeavor to eliminate inequality in status. Article 46 enjoins the State to promote with special care social, economic and educational interests of the weaker sections of the society, in particular, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Right to social and economic justice conjointly commingles with right to shelter as an inseparable component for meaningful right to life. It was, therefore, held that right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (e) and it is a facet of inseparable meaningful right to life under Article 21. Food shelter and clothing are minimal human rights. The State has undertaken as its economic policy of planned development of massive housing schemes. The right to allotment of houses constructed by the Housing Board to the weaker sections, lower income group people under Lower income Group Scheme, was held to be constitutional strategy, an economic programme undertaken by the State and the weaker sections are entitled to allotment as per the scheme.;