Summary
The Court restored acquisition for an ITBP battalion headquarters, holding that the operational need and acquisition chronology justified urgency and dispensing with the section 5A inquiry. Time needed to identify a suitable large tract did not negate urgency. The record also showed deposit of estimated compensation and notice to the owners, who declined payment. The High Court’s order invalidating acquisition and directing compensation under the 2013 Act was set aside.
Issues
- Whether the operational requirements and chronology justified invoking urgency for the ITBP headquarters acquisition.
- Whether the compensation record supported the owners’ objection and the High Court’s relief.
Held
- The urgent requirement arose from increased counter-insurgency, law-and-order and disaster-management duties. Identifying a suitable 72–75 acre tract necessarily took time; that interval did not establish absence of urgency. Only three months separated the section 4 and section 6 notifications. (¶ 6.1–6.2)
- On these facts, real urgency justified dispensing with the section 5A inquiry. The authorities relied on by the owners involved materially different acquisitions, including private-party or company purposes. (¶ 6.2)
- Ninety to ninety-five per cent of the acquired land had been developed and put to use. The challengers held only part of the tract; other owners had not challenged acquisition. These circumstances also weighed against the High Court’s invalidation of the notifications for the whole tract. (¶ 6.3)
- The compensation deposits and notices inviting owners to receive the estimated amount defeated the asserted non-payment objection. The owners’ refusal did not entitle them to complain that compensation had not been paid; withdrawal remained open to them. (¶¶ 6.4, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment quashed and landowners’ writ petition dismissed. Owners remain free to withdraw compensation. No order as to costs.