SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ
Jage Ram and others, Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2034 of l969, D/-2-3-1971
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. L. Gossain, Sr. Advocate, ( Mr. N. N. Goswamy, Advocate, M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co. and Mr. K R. Nagaraja, Advocate, with him), for Appellants: M/s. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. K Gambhir. Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 18.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9 , 17 (2) (c), 38 to 44 (B) - Land Acquisition - Affidavit - Challenged - Appeal by certificate - Assertion that there was no urgency in matter of acquiring land in question and therefore there was no justification for having recourse to Section 17 and thus deprive the appellants of benefit of Section 5-A of Act - It was further alleged therein that acquisition in question was made for benefit of a company and hence proceedings should have been taken under Sections 38 to 44 (B) of Act and that there was no public purpose involved in case - It was further pleaded that land acquired was not waste and arable land and that Section 2 (c) of Act did not confer power on the Government to dispense with the proceedings under Section 5-A - In counter-affidavit filed by Deputy Director of Industries (Administration), Government of Haryana on behalf of State of Haryana, above allegations were all denied - Scheme for setting up project had been finalised and approved by concerned authorities - Whether State could have proceeded on facts of this case under Section 17 (2) (c) – Held, acquisition can be made only when appropriate Government forms opinion that because of urgent importance, concerned land has to be acquired for purposes mentioned in that provision - Under Clause (c) acquisition can be made only when requisite opinion is formed by appropriate Government - Further under Clause (a) acquisition has to be made to meet certain unforeseen emergency as a result of which the immediate possession of land is necessary - Further conditions under which acquisition has to be made differ from clause to clause. - There is no basis to say that general words in Clause (c) follow particular and specific words in Clauses (b) and (c) - Nor can it be said that specific words contained in Clauses (a) and (b) constitute a category, class or genus - Hence, Court are unable to accept contention that in interpreting Clause (c) of Section 17 (2), Court should apply rule of ejusdem generis - As none of the contentions taken by appellants are acceptable, this appeal fails and is dismissed - But in circumstances of case Court make no order as to costs - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
HEGDE, J.:- This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition wherein the appellants challenged the validity of proceedings under Sections 4, 6, 9 and 17 (2) (c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Punjab Legislature. For convenience sake we shall refer to that amended Act as the Act . The High Court discussed the writ Petition.
2. It appears that several contentions were sought to be advanced before the High Court but in this Court only three contentions have been pressed for our consideration i e., (1) the acquisition in question being one for a company, proceedings should have been taken under Sections 38 to 44-B of the Act, the same having not been taken, the proceedings taken are void; (2) there was no urgency and hence recourse should not have been had to Section 17 of the Act and (3) Section 17 (2) (c) is inapplicable to the facts of the case.
3. Now we may state the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the questions in dispute.
4. On 14/17th March 1969, Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act notifying for acquisition the land concerned in this case. The notification further directed that action under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Act shall be taken on the ground of urgency and the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply in regard to the said acquisition. The preamble to the said notification says that
"whereas it appears to the Governor of Haryana that land is likely to be required to be taken by Government, at public expenses, for a public purpose, namely for the setting up a factory for the manufacture of Chinaware and Porcelain-ware including wall Glazed, Tiles, etc., at village Kasser, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described in the specification below is likely to be required for the above purpose".
On March l 8, 1969 the Government issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act acquiring the land for a public purpose. On March 28, 1969 notices under Section 9 of the Act were served on the appellants. On April 8, 1969, the appellants filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.
5. The allegations in the writ petition include the assertion that there was no urgency in the matter of acquiring the land in question and therefore there was no justification for having recourse to Section 17 and thus deprive the appellants of the benefit of Section 5-A of the Act. It was further alleged therein that the acquisition in question was made for the benefit of a company and hence proceedings should have been taken under Sections 38 to 44 (B) of the Act and that there was no public purpose involved in the case. It was further pleaded that the land acquired was not waste and arable land and that Section 2 (c) of the Act did not confer power on the Government to dispense with the proceedings under Section 5-A. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Industries (Administration), Government of Haryana on behalf of the State of Haryana, the above allegations were all denied. Therein it is stated that at the instance of the State of Haryana, Government of India had issued a letter of intent to a company for setting up a factory for the manufacture of Glazed Tiles etc., in village Kasser. That project was to be started with the collaboration of a foreign company known as Pilkington Tiles Ltd. The scheme for setting up the project had been finalised and approved by the concerned authorities. On November 26, 1968, the Government wrote to one of the promoters of the project, Shri. H. L. Somany asking him to complete the "arrangements for the import of capital equipment and acquisition of land in Haryana State for setting up of the proposed factory". It was further stated in that communication that the Government was pleased to extend the time for completing the project upto April 30, 1969. Under those circumstances it had beco
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.