2005 Supreme(SC) 1216

2005(7) Supreme 297
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 2005
With
Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 2005
Decided on 20-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K. Ramamoorthy and Anoop G. Chaudhari, T.S. Doabia, M.N. Rao and Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocates, Parijat Sinha, S. Ghosh, Snehasish Mukherjee, Mrs. June Chaudhari, Manoj Saxena, Mohan Prasad Meharia and Ms. Arpita Duarah, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, B.V. Balaram Das, K. Maruthi Rao, Mrs. K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Sarveshwar, Advocates.

Important point
In a land acquisition matter, formation of opinion as regards public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regards consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1891—Sections 4, 5A & 6—Appellant was tenant in premises in question and suit for eviction was decreed—On a requisition from appellant to Special Deputy Collector for acquisition of land for continuing the business, notification was published on 15.10.1985 but it lapsed —Fresh notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued on 3.6.1989 and Respondent filed detailed objection questioning public purpose for acquisition of land—Collector after inquiry submitted report to the Government—Declaration u/s 6 of the Act was issued—Writ petition challenging notification and declaration —Additional ground of total non-application of mind on part of State Government—High Court on satisfying itself directed State to produce the record relating to case which was not produced on plea that it was not readily traceable—High Court allowed the writ—Appeal—Question before High Court was whether objections raised by appellant objecting to acquisition of land were considered by the Government—Formation of opinion as regards public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind—Section 5A of the Act conferred a valuable important right which was to be construed to be a fundamental right—Consideration of objections by owner of land and acceptance of recommendation by Government must precede a proper application of mind on part of Government— Impugned judgment suffered no illegality.

       Held : The main question which fell for its consideration before the High Court was whether the objections raised by the Appellant objecting to the acquisition of land on various grounds have been considered by the Government. It is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of ‘eminent domain’ may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid. Indisputably, the definition of public purpose is of wide amplitude and takes within its sweep the acquisition of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State, as envisaged under Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act. But the same would not mean that the State is the sole judge therefore and no judicial review shall lie. [See Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another - (1995) Supp (1) SCC 596]. The conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is attached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the jurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an opportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the same must scrupulously be complied with. For the said purpose, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court in a case, where there has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to grant a relief to the writ petitioner. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act renders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence. But when the decision making process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-known principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Moreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must be done in a fair and reasonable manner. It is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and not a mere formality. Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as also suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regard consideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones. The State in its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law. It is also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable important right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India has been held to be akin to a fundamental right. (Paras 6 and 10)

       However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. As and when a person aggrieved questions the decision making process, the court in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial review exists, may call for the records whereupon such records must be produced. The writ petition was filed in the year 1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the said writ petition was allowed. This Court, however, interfered with the said order of the High Court and remitted the matter back to it upon giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings. (Para 19)

       There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority was imperative. It is not a case where this Court is required to go into the question of malice either in fact or in law or the question of colourable exercise of power by the State any other statutory authority. In view of our findings aforementioned, it is not necessary for us to go into the other questions raised by the parties. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity. (Paras 35 to 38)