Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 98
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham and R.J.Bahadur JJ.
Mt.Dhaneshwary
Versus
Land Acquisition Office
Civil Writ Judicial No. 257 of 1965 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 17, 1965
The interpretation of "arable land" in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, includes not only land fit for cultivation but also land actually brought under cultivation, in which either crops have been grown or orchards or trees have been planted.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - ARABLE LAND - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - FACTUAL MATRIX - AFFIDAVITS OF PARTIES - ADMISSIBILITY OF STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONERS TO CHIEF MINISTER - RELEVANCE OF LOCATION WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC ROADS - OBJECTIVE FACTORS - DISTINGUISHABLE CASE LAWS - OPINION OF GOVERNMENT - URGENCY - RELEVANCE OF DELAY.
Fact of the Case:
Twenty-six petitioners from Patna challenged the validity of two notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of land for a Cattle-cum-Milk Colony in Patna. The petitioners claimed that the lands were not "waste or arable" lands and that the Government had no jurisdiction to apply the special provisions of Section 17 of the Act. The Government, however, contended that the lands were arable and that there was urgency for exercising the special powers under Section 17.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disputed lands were arable lands within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Act. It interpreted "arable land" to include not only land fit for cultivation but also land actually brought under cultivation, in which either crops have been grown or orchards or trees have been planted. The court also held that the Government's opinion that the disputed lands were arable lands was not based on irrelevant considerations and that there was urgency for exercising the special powers under Section 17.
Issues: 1. Whether the disputed lands were "waste or arable" lands within the meaning of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Whether the Government had jurisdiction to apply the special provisions of Section 17 of the Act. 3. Whether the Government's opinion that the disputed lands were arable lands was based on irrelevant considerations. 4. Whether there was urgency for exercising the special powers under Section 17.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted "arable land" in Section 17(1) of the Act to include not only land fit for cultivation but also land actually brought under cultivation, in which either crops have been grown or orchards or trees have been planted. This interpretation was based on the explanation added to Section 17(1) by the Bihar amendment of 1951 and the implications arising out of the express reference to standing crops in Sub-section (3) of Section 17. 2. The court held that the Government had jurisdiction to apply the special provisions of Section 17 of the Act because the disputed lands were arable lands within the meaning of Section 17(1). 3. The court held that the Government's opinion that the disputed lands were arable lands was not based on irrelevant considerations because it was based on the report of the Land Acquisition Deputy Collector, who had inspected the lands and found agricultural operations going on there. 4. The court held that there was urgency for exercising the special powers under Section 17 because the land was required for the purpose of establishing a Cattle-cum-milk colony, which was a very urgent problem in Patna City.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with costs.
Narasimham, J.
1. This is application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by twenty-six persons of Patna impugning the validity of two notifications, dated the 13th March, 1961 (Annexures 1 and 2), No. D. L. A. P.--269/61-3418-R and No. D. L. A. P.--269/61-3419-R, under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By the first notification the Government of Bihar intimated to the general public that a large block of land, having an area of 360.09 acres (1089 bighas, 5, kathas, 7.12 chitaks) in villages Rashidchak, Pahari and Ranipur, situated within the limits of the Patna Municipal Corporation, was required to be acquired for the public purpose of establishment of a Cattle-cum-Milk Colony in Patna. In the first notification Government further stated as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.17(4) of the said Act the State Government have decided that in view of the urgency of the project, provisions of Sec. 5A of the Act shall not apply. Certified that the land is waste and arable and there is no objection to the acquisition of the lands on any general or specific grounds."
The second notification was issued under Sec. 6 of that Act, compliance with Section 5A having been dispensed with by virtue of the earlier notification. The second notification is, consequential to the first and its validity depends on the validity of the first notification. Hence in this judgment the first notification alone is referred to as the notification. The khala numbers and survey plot numbers of the lands to be acquired have been specified in detail in the notification. The twentysix petitioners are owners of 27.47 1/2 acres of land included in the said notification, and the actual plots claimed by them have been given in detail in paragraph 4 of the petition.
2. The main contentions of Mr. Mukherjee for the petitioners are these:
(1) The lands in question arc not "waste or arable" lands and, consequently, the Government of Bihar had no jurisdiction to issue the direction under Sub-section (4) of Sec.17 of the Act and to apply the special provisions of that section.
(2) The notification does not indicate the materials on the basis of which the Government formed the opinion that the lands in dispute belonged to the class described in Subsection (1) of Sec.17, and, moreover, there was no urgency for exercising the special powers under Sec.17.
3. Before discussing these two contentions, I may dispose of two preliminary objections raised by the respondents to the maintainability of this petition. Firstly, it was urged that a joint petition by twentysix persons who own different plots within the area under acquisition was not maintainable. In my opinion, this objection, being of a procedural nature, will not, by itself, suffice for rejecting the petition, unless prejudice is shown to have been caused. It is true that no two plots, even though they may lie adjacent to each other, may be alike, and it is possible to take the view that though one of them may be waste or arable land the other may be a building site. Hence it would have been much better if each of the petitioners had filed a separate application challenging the validity of the acquisition, so far as his plots were concerned, and filed necessary papers and affidavits to show that those plots were not arable or waste lands within the meaning of Sec.17(1) of the Act. But the petition is a joint one by all the twenty six petitioners, and the allegations in the petition show clearly that they have asserted that all the lands are of the same quality, namely, that they are valuable building sites and not waste or arable lands. If the petitioners have chosen to take up this position and make a common cause, it will not be proper to throw out this petition in the absence of any evidence to show that prejudice has been caused to any of the parties. On the other hand, the filing of a common petition by all the petitioners has
