2002 Supreme(SC) 329

2002(2) Supreme 320
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kolkata High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1913 of 2002
(@ SLP (C) No. 12759 of 2001)
Decided on 7-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H. Desai, Bhaskar Gupta, Senior Advocates, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ajay Sharma, G.K. Banerjee, Prateek Jalan, Sidharth Bhatnagar, N. Dube, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ranjan Dev, Ashish Chakravarty, Surendra Dube, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The acquisition in question is not vitiated on any grounds either of non-existence of any emergency or being mala fide as concluded by High Court. The acquisition proceeding is held to be in accordance with law by the Apex Court.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 4(1) and 17(4)-Premises required for Students of National Medical College, Calcutta-Notifications issued in 1982 and subsequently in 1994 quashed by Court-The premises was badly needed for the occupation of students-So notification was issued u/s 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act on 29.11.94 -High Court again quashed it on grounds of non-existence of any emergency and that it was mala fide-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court was right in its conclusions? (No)-Appeal allowed-Case law referred.

       Held that the premises in question was required for the students of National Medical College, Calcutta and the Notification issued in December 1982 had been quashed by the Court and the subsequent Notification issued on 25.2.1994 also had been quashed by the Court. It is only thereafter the Notification was issued under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act on 29.11.1994 which came up for consideration before the High Court. Apart from the fact that there had already been considerable delay in acquiring the premises in question on account of the intervention by Courts, the premises was badly needed for the occupation of the students of National Medical College, Calcutta. Thus, existence of urgency was writ large on the facts of the case and therefore, said exercise of power in the case in hand, cannot be interfered with by a Court of law on a conclusion that there did not exist any emergency. The conclusion of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, therefore, is unsustainable. (Para 4)

       It is indeed difficult for us to uphold the conclusion of the Division Bench that acquisition is mala fide on the mere fact that physical possession had not been delivered pursuant to the earlier directions of a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court dated 25.8.94. When the Court is called upon to examine the question as to whether the acquisition is mala fide or not, what is necessary to be inquired into and found out is, whether the purpose for which the acquisition is going to be made, is a real purpose or a camouflage. By no stretch of imagination, exercise of power for acquisition can be held to be mala fide, so long as, the purpose of acquisition continues and as has already been stated, there existed emergency to acquire the premises in question. The premises which was under occupation of the students of the National Medical College, Calcutta, was obviously badly needed for the college and the appropriate authority having failed in their attempt earlier twice, the orders having been quashed by the High Court, had taken the third attempt of issuing notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, such acquisition cannot be held to be mala fide and, therefore, the conclusion of the Division Bench in the impugned Judgment that the acquisition is mala fide, must be set aside and we accordingly set aside the same. (Para 5)

       In our considered opinion, having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, the exercise of power under Section 17 by the State Government, cannot be held to be illegal or mala fide and consequently, the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court cannot be sustained. The learned Judges of the High Court have been totally swayed away by the fact of non-implementation of the directions of Batabyal J., in his order dated 25.8.1994, but that by itself would not be a ground for annulling lawful exercise of power under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court and hold that the acquisition in question is not vitiated on any ground. The acquisition proceeding, therefore, is held to be in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. (Para 6)