Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
(1) State of W.B. and others (In C.A. Nos. 412 and 413 of 1964)
(2) Ramakrishna Mission, Howrah (In C.A. Nos. 412 and 413 of 1964), Appellants
Versus
(1) P. N.Talukdar and others (In C.A. Nos. 410 to 412 of 1964)
(2) Abdul Kadar Laskar and others. (In C.A. NO. 413 of 1964, Respondents. )
Civil Appeals Nos. 410 to 413 of 1964. 647
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. P. K. Bose, Advocate, with them), for Appellants (In Appeals Nos. 410 and 411 of 1964) Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 (In Appeal No. 412 1964) and Respondents Nos. 30 to 34 (In Appeal No. 413 of 1964):
Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Durgabai Deshmukh, M/s. S. N. Mukherjee S. C. Bose, A. K. Basu and Naunit Lal, Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In Appeals Nos. 412 and 413 of 1964), Respondents No. 2 (in Appeal No. 410 of 1964) and Respondent No. 29 (In Appeal No. 411 of 1964):
Mr. S. V. Gupte, Addl. Solicitor General of India, (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him) for Respondent No. 1 (In Appeals Nos. 410 and 412 of 1964) and Respondent No. 29 (In Appeal No. 413 of 1964); M/s. I. N. Shroff, and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates for Respondents Nos. 2 to 28 (In Appeal No. 413 of 1964).
LAND ACQUISITION - Acquisition of land for a company - Consent of the appropriate government - Whether can be given on a combination of grounds provided in S. 40(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Construction of staff-quarters for a company - Whether can be brought within the ambit of cl. (a) or cl. (aa) of S. 40(1) - Agreement between the State and the company - Whether must specify the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work to be erected on the acquired land.
Fact of the Case:
The Ramakrishna Mission, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860, applied to the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of certain lands for its various activities. The Collector issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of staff quarters, hostel building and playground of the Mission. After following the due procedure, a notification under S. 6 was issued stating that the land was needed for a public purpose at the public expenses of the Mission. The Mission challenged the validity of the land acquisition proceedings by filing two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions, but the Division Bench allowed the appeals. The State of West Bengal and the Mission filed appeals to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition of land was for a company (the Mission) and that it was to be acquired at the expense of the company. Therefore, it was necessary to comply with Part VII of the Act, and the argument on behalf of the Mission that no proceedings under Part VII of the Act were necessary and what was done under that Part was entirely redundant, must fail. The Court further held that the consent of the appropriate government could be given on being satisfied as to one of the three clauses of Section 40(1) only or as to more than one clause. In the present case, the State Government considered clause (b) of Section 40(1) only and did not apply its mind to clauses (a) and (aa). The Court also held that construction of staff-quarters could not be brought within the ambit of cl. (b) of S. 40(1) as it cannot be said to be useful to a section of the public. The Court further held that the Mission did not lay any foundation for the argument that the case was covered by cl. (aa) and that it was impossible to hold that the land was required for construction of buildings by a company which was engaged in any industry or work which is for a public purpose. The Court also held that the State Government apparently thought that construction of staff-quarters stands on the same footing as construction of hostel buildings and playground and considered the necessity of giving consent on the basis of cl.(b) only.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land was for a public purpose or for a company? 2. Whether the consent of the appropriate government could be given on a combination of grounds provided in S. 40(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 3. Whether construction of staff-quarters for a company could be brought within the ambit of cl. (a) or cl. (aa) of S. 40(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 4. Whether the agreement between the State and the company must specify the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work to be erected on the acquired land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition of land was for a company (the Mission) and that it was to be acquired at the expense of the company. Therefore, it was necessary to comply with Part VII of the Act, and the argument on behalf of the Mission that no proceedings under Part VII of the Act were necessary and what was done under that Part was entirely redundant, must fail. 2. The Court held that the consent of the appropriate government could be given on being satisfied as to one of the three clauses of Section 40(1) only or as to more than one clause. In the present case, the State Government considered clause (b) of Section 40(1) only and did not apply its mind to clauses (a) and (aa). 3. The Court held that construction of staff-quarters could not be brought within the ambit of cl. (b) of S. 40(1) as it cannot be said to be useful to a section of the public. The Court further held that the Mission did not lay any foundation for the argument that the case was covered by cl. (aa) and that it was impossible to hold that the land was required for construction of buildings by a company which was engaged in any industry or work which is for a public purpose. 4. The Court held that the State Government apparently thought that construction of staff-quarters stands on the same footing as construction of hostel buildings and playground and considered the necessity of giving consent on the basis of cl.(b) only.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. :
These four appeals on certificates granted by the High Court of Calcutta arise out of the same land acquisition proceedings and raise the same points and will be dealt with together. There ware two petitions before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the land acquisition proceedings which were dealt with together. The learned Single Judge who originally dealt with the matters dismissed the petitions. Then followed two appeals to the Division Bench of the High Court, which were allowed. Four applications were then made for certificates to appeal to this Court, two of them by the State of West Bengal and two by the Ramakrishna Mission (hereinafter referred to as the Mission) in whose favour the acquisiton proceedings ware taken. That is why we have four appeals before us, two by the State of West Bengal and two by the Mission. We propose to deal with them together in the judgment.
2. The Mission is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and the object of the society inter alia, is to impart and promote the study of Vedanta and its principles as propounded by Sri Ramakrishna and of comparative theology in its widest form and also to propagate religious, social and educational teachings and activities for the benefit of the public. In that connection the Mission had acquired by private purchase or acquisition under the Land Accusation Act No. 1 of 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a large tract of land at a place called Narendrapur. In order to carry out its objects, the Mission, inter alia establishes, maintains and carries on schools, colleges, orphanages, workshops, laboratories, hospitals, dispensaries, houses for the infirm, the invalid and the afflicted, famine relief works and other educational and charitable works and institutions of a like nature. For that purpose it constructs, maintains or alters any house buildings or works necessary or convenient therefor. In the recent past the Mission had started various public works in the locality known as Narendrapur and established there (a) a residential degree college with hostel building and staff quarters, (b) a residential multi-purpose school, (c) a residential senior basic school and an institution for the blind with similar amenities, (d) a students home for the residence of students who study in the University or other colleges, and an institution for the promotion of adult and social education with hostels etc., (e) a school of shorthand and typewriting, (f) a dairy farm, (g) a poultry farm and fishery for training purposes, (h) a centre for training carpentry and book binding etc. (i) a fully equipped hospital, (j) a library, a gymnasium, workshops for the boys of schools and colleges, agricultural farms for the multipurpose schools.
3. In October 1960 the Mission applied to the Land Acquisition Collector, Alipore, for acquisition of certain lands as the land at its disposal at Narendrapur was not sufficient for its purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector was requested to start proceedings beginning with S.4 read with S.38 of the Act for the acquisition of 14.11 acres of land and most of this land was in the shape, of pockets in the existing land of the Mission or adjacent to it. The Mission informed the Collector that it was willing and ready to enter into necessary agreement with the Government as provided for in the Act for purposes of this acquisition and pay also all reasonable costs in respect thereof. Thereafter a notification was issued under S. 4 of the Act on July 24, 1961, in which it was recited that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely for the construction of staff quarters, hostel building and playground of the Mission and that the area needed was about 14.11 acres. Notice was given to persons interested in the land specified in the notification to file objection, if any, within thirty days.
4. It appears that thereafter proceedings were taken under
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
