SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. S. Balakrishnan, Advocate and Mr. M.K.D. Namboodiry, Advocate, for Responents; Mr. B. Sen, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate with him), for Intervener.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 133 (1) (a) and 226 - Land Acquisition Act - Sections 4 and 6 – Filed by certificates granted - Land Acquisition - Notificationwas issued by Government of West Bengal under Section 4 of Act stating that a piece of land delineated in plan available in Office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, as well as in that of the Director of M/s. Sen Raleigh Industries India Ltd at in District was likely to be needed for a public purpose (not being a purpose of the Union), namely, for expansion of factory of the Company and "for construction of quarters for its workers and staff and for providing other amenities directly connected - Land measuring 146.90 acres which was same land as was covered by first notification, except for a small area - Second notification stated that land was likely "to be needed for a public purpose, not being a purpose of Union – Held, whole object of provision under which conclusive presumption has to be raised in regard to nature of purpose would be defeated – Court cannot, hold merely on strength of the absence of production of documentary evidence by State that onus (which rested heavily on shoulders of the respondents) to prove mala fides or colourable exercise of power on part of State Government, has been discharged - Even so respondents have produced no material to show that assertion about public purpose as stated in third notification was incorrect for reason that the acquired land was not suitable for any industry or that no industrial activity except that by Company had been undertaken in neighborhood of the acquired area - Learned counsel for respondents raised a preliminary point to effect that second notification was void inasmuch as it had been issued while first notification was still in force – Court do not see any reason for entertaining point when it was not raised on behalf of respondents at any stage before High Court - Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
KOSHAL, J.:— By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 143 to 147 of 1970, all five of which have been filed by certificates granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution by the High Court of Calcutta and are directed against its common judgment dated the 17th February, 1967 accepting five Letters Patent Appeals and, in reversal of the judgment of a learned single Judge, issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Land Acquisition Collector, Burdwan and the State of West Bengal to cancel or withdraw a notification dated November 3, 1961 and another containing a declaration dated June 20, 1963 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) respectively.
2. The facts leading to the litigation covered by the appeals before us may be briefly stated. On February 12, 1960 a notification (later in this judgment called the first notification) was issued by the Government of West Bengal under Section 4 of the Act stating that a piece of land delineated in the plan available in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Burdwan, as well as in that of the Director of M/s. Sen Raleigh Industries India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) at Kanyapur in District Burdwan was likely to be needed for a public purpose (not being a purpose of the Union), namely, for expansion of the factory of the Company and "for construction of quarters for its workers and staff and for providing other amenities directly connected therewith, such as school, playgrounds, hospitals, markets, police out-posts, etc., in the villages of Sarakdih, Nadiha, Garui, Hatgaruy and Panchgachhia, jurisdiction Lists Nos. 1, 2, 3, 42/3 and 34 respectively, Police Stations Asansol and Barabani, Pargana Shergarh, District Burdwan...." at the expense of the Company. An area totalling 17.20 acres and belonging to the respondents was included in the land covered by the notification.
The respondents preferred objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A of the Act to the effect that the land was not acquired for any public purpose, that the real purpose was to benefit the Company and that the first notification was a fraudulent exercise of the power conferred by the Act on the State Government.
A fresh notification (second notification for short) under Section 4 of the Act was issued on November 3, 1961 in respect of land measuring 146.90 acres which was the same land as was covered by the first notification, except for a small area. The second notification stated that the land was likely "to be needed for a public purpose, not being a purpose of the Union, namely, for industrial development at Asansol in the villages of Sarakdih, Nadiha, Garui, Hatgaruy and Panchgachhia, jurisdiction Lists Nos. 1, 2, 3, 78 and 34 respectively, Police Stations Asansol and Barabani, Pargana Shergarh, District Burdwan...... at public expense."
The area of 17.20 acres mentioned above was included in the land covered by the second notification also and the respondents filed objections under Section 5A of the Act over again contending that although the ostensible purpose of the acquisition was a public purpose, the land was really sought to be acquired for a private purpose, i.e., for the benefit of the Company.
The first notification was cancelled by an order dated the 26th April, 1962 and on the 20th June, 1963, the impugned notification containing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act (the third notification for brevity) was made. About three months later the respondents were served with notices under Section 9 of the Act informing them that the State Government was taking steps to secure possession of the acquired lands and that they could submit their claims for compensation. Further representatives were made by the respondents in an effort to have the acquisition proceedings dropped but without success and it was then that each one of them filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.