2006 Supreme(SC) 1110

2006(9) Supreme 399
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
Ashok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
Daulat Singh Surana & Ors. - Appellants
versus
First Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6756 of 2003
Decided on 13-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : J.L. Gupta, S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocates, Sanjiv Sen, J.P. Pandey and Rajan Narain, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocate, Satish Vig and Bikas Kargupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
While examining the validity of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the question of possession is absolutely irrelevant. The examination should remain confined only to the question of existence of public purpose.

Headnote:(i) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Validity of notification u/s 4 and declaration u/s 6 of the Act - Acquisition of land which has been continuously in possession of State Government since 1943 - From year 1943, premises being used as office of Dy. Commissioner of Police - Notification u/s 4 of the Act issued on 13-12-1994 for acquisition of land for permanent accommodation of office-cum-residence of Dy. Commissioner of Police Security Control - Writ petition filed for quashing the notification - According to appellant, notification u/s 4 of the Act could not have been validly issued in respect of the land, possession whereof had been retained illegally by the State Government - Possession of land had not been handed over to appellant in spite of Court’s order - Whether non-delivery of possession of land had vitiated the Notification u/s 4 of the Act so as to make it nullity - (No) - Division Bench of the High Court came to a categorical finding that for the purpose of examining the validity of a Notification u/s 4 of the Act, question of possession of land is absolutely irrelevant - Examination should remain confined only to the question of existence of public purpose.

       Held : The High Court was correct and justified in holding that while examining the validity of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the question of possession of land was absolutely irrelevant.(Para 29)

       The Division Bench held that the order dated 18th August, 1993 was per incurium. The Court also observed that the learned Single Judge was wrong in holding that the publication of the said Notification under Section 4 was an act done in violation of the said order dated 18th August, 1993. According to the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge proceeded on a completely wrong premise that the land in question had been kept in possession by the Government, even after formally derequisitioning the same; for, as a matter of fact, the piece sought to be acquired, had never been derequisitioned after 30th January, 1959; it had rather stood absolutely vested in the Government. The Division Bench clearly came to the conclusion that the State Governments possession of the land never became illegal or unauthorized by the operation of law. (Para 30)

       The Division Bench specifically observed that the declaration published on 7th August, 1995 in the official gazette has been produced before them. The Division Bench observed that they were satisfied that the words partly at the public expense and partly at the expense of within the aforesaid ward published in the newspaper did not correctly reproduce the declaration issued under section 6 of the Act. The official gazette had correctly incorporated that the land was acquired at the public expense only. Therefore, the Division Bench did not find any infirmity in Section 4 notification and in the declaration dated 23rd June, 1995 made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (Para 31)

       It may be pertinent to mention that the Division Bench was quite careful about the rights of the appellant and various proceedings and orders passed in those proceedings.(Para 33)

       The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd December, 1996. The Division Bench has observed that the appellant would be entitled to recover rent, compensation of rent to which he was entitled in law in appropriate proceedings. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity as far as Notification under Section 4 and consequent declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Section 4 of the Notification is usually assailed on the ground of public purpose. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to enumerate the concept of Public Purpose and deal with the decided cases interpreting the scope and ambit of public purpose. (Para 34)

       Public purpose for which the premises was required in the instant case was not questioned seriously. As a matter of fact, the State of West Bengal has been using the premises in question for more than six decades for the safety and security of the people by having an office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control). Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the premises was not required by the State Government for the interest and welfare of the people or there was no public purpose involved in acquiring the premises in question. (Para 72)

       (ii) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Public purpose - Definition - Public purpose will include a purpose in which general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is directly or indirectly involved - Public purpose is not static - Concept of public purpose should include the matters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare and prosperity of the community or public at large - Right of eminent domain - Constitution of India - Articles 37 and 39.

       Held : Public purpose will include a purpose in which the general interest of community as opposed to the interest of an individual is directly or indirectly involved. Individual interest must give way to public interest as far as public purpose in respect of acquisition of land is concerned.(Para 36)

       In the Constitution of India, some guidelines can be traced as far as public purpose is concerned in Article 37 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in this Part (Directive Principles of the State Policy) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.(Para 37)

       According to Article 39 of the Constitution, the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good. The laws made for the purpose of securing the constitutional intention and spirits have to be for public purpose.(Para 38)

       Public purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the community or locality and, therefore, the legislature has left it to the State (Government) to decide what is public purpose and also to declare the need of a given land for the purpose. The legislature has left the discretion to the Government regarding public purpose. The Government has the sole and absolute discretion in the matter.(Para 40)

       The right of eminent domain is the right of the State to reassert either temporarily or permanently its dominion over any piece of land on account of public exigency and for public good.(Para 64)

       Public purpose cannot and should not be precisely defined and its scope and ambit be limited as far as acquisition of land for the public purpose is concerned. Public purpose is not static. It also changes with the passage of time, need and requirements of the community. Broadly speaking, public purpose means the general interest of the community as opposed to the interest of an individual.(Para 69)

       The power of compulsory acquisition as described by the term eminent domain can be exercised only in the interest and for the welfare of the people. The concept of public purpose should include the matters, such as, safety, security, health, welfare and prosperity of the community or public at large.(Para 70)

       The concept of eminent domain is an essential attribute of every State. This concept is based on the fundamental principle that the interest and claim of the whole community is always superior to the interest of an individual.(Para 71)

       (iii) WORDS AND PHRASES - Words ‘Public Purpose’ - Meaning - Expression not capable of precise definition and has not a rigid meaning - Public purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the community or locality.(Paras 39, 40 & 41)