SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE A.M. AHMADI AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3902-26 of 1993
Decided on 13-8-1993
Advocates appeared:
P.P. Rao, S.S. Ray, R.K. Jain and M.L. Verma, Senior Advocates (R. Shankar Prasad, A.K. Srivastava, Rakesh K. Khanna, R.P. Singh, Manoj Goel, Ms Abha, R. Sharma, Ashish Verma, A. Sharan, K.L. Taneja, Ejaz Maqbool, B.K. Mishra, D.P. Mukherjee, B.B. Singh and Uma Dutta, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Land Acquisition Act – Section 6, 41, 40 – Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act – Appeals are directed against the common judgment and order by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in a batch of writ petitions, preferred before, excepting whereby declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed and the case remitted to the State Government for further proceedings under two heads – Appellants herein are a few members of the Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society, a society registered way back, under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act – Its members, the appellants state – It was stated to have been floated by members of the Bihar Finance Service who were landless and did not own any residential plot or house in the city of Patna. Statedly, its membership was not confined to the members of the Bihar Finance Service alone but was open to everyone who was similarly landless –Held, It was the conceded case before the High Court that there could be no acquisition for the respondent-Society without provisions of Section 40 of the Act being involved and complied with – In Babu Barkya case6 too, this Court has taken the view that as provided in Section 39, the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act beginning with Section 6 and ending with Section 37 shall not be put into operation unless two conditions precedent are fulfilled, namely, (i) the previous consent of the appropriate Government has been obtained and (if) an agreement in terms has been executed by the Company – Such consent could be given if it was satisfied on the report of the enquiry envisaged or enquiry held itself that the purpose of the acquisition is for purposes as envisaged – In this state of law, the plea set up on behalf of the appellants that when their Society could not be treated either as a private or a Government company, it was no company at all so as to remain bound to comply with Chapter VII of the Act, is of no substance – Society as a company is bound to satisfy the requirements of Section 40 before taking aid of Sections 6 to 37 of the Act to promote its needed acquisition – Ordered Accordingly.
JUDGMENT
PUNCHHI, J.—Special leave granted in this bunch of petitions.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated February 22, 1990 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in a batch of writ petitions, preferred before it in the years 1983 and 1984, excepting one in the year 1988, whereby declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) dated March 16/18, 1983 was quashed and the case remitted to the State Government for further proceedings under two heads.
3. The appellants herein are a few members of the Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society, a society registered way back in the year 1973, under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act. Its members, the appellants state, are about 400 in number. It was stated to have been floated by members of the Bihar Finance Service who were landless and did not own any residential plot or house in the city of Patna. Statedly, its membership was not confined to the members of the Bihar Finance Service alone but was open to everyone who was similarly landless. The Society was organised and knit to secure from the State Government land by acquisition so that the society could give plots to its members or build houses and give them to its members. For the purpose, in 1973 itself it put a proposal to the State Government to acquire 59.95 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Kumhrar, a part of the city of Patna. After some steps, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on April 21, 1981 inviting interested persons to file their objections under Section 5-A of the said Act. On objections received from interested persons, and disposed of by the Additional Land Collector, and on report submitted, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made to acquire land to the extent aforementioned except 5 acres which were set apart for allotment to persons likely to be disturbed by the acquisition. On writ petitions filed, the High Court quashed the declaration under Section 6 remitting back the matter to the State Government for reconsideration on two counts, one such count being violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A. This is how the matter has come before us in appeal.
4. It prominently needs to be mentioned, at this stage, that both the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued in the state of law as was existing prior to the passing of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984). This law on the subject rather was substituted and amended by various Bihar legislative enactments. It is to the law as applicable in the State of Bihar that we shall henceforth advert to for deciding this matter.
5.Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to Bihar provides as follows:"(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed a for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published at the office of the Collector, at the office of the sub-divisional officer, at the offices of the smallest revenue administrative unit and Gram Panchayat, if any, constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (Bihar Act VII of 1948), and at some conspicuous place in the village in which the land is situated; and the Collector shall cause copies of the notification to be served on all persons known or believed to be interested in the land.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section the expression smallest revenue administrative unit shall mean the revenue administrative unit next below that of a sub-division whether known for the time being as N.E.S. Block, Circle, Anchal or otherwise.
(2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either generally or specially authorised by such Government or the Collector in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality.
6. By virtue of clause (c) of Secti
relied on : Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. governor of Delhi
Farid Ahmed Abdal Samad v. Municipal Corpn. of the City of Ahmedabad
Babu Barkya Thakar v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra)
State of Gujarat v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhai
State of Gujarat v. Ambalal Haiderbhai
General Govt. Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Wahab Uddin
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.