SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(Pat) 48

PATNA HIGH COURT
H.Mahapatra and A.B.N.Sinha JJ.
Lakshmi Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 335 of 1961 ; 433 of 1961 ; 434 of 1961 ; 450 of 1961 ;
Decided On : APRIL 15, 1965

The expression "arable land" in Sec.17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 includes land brought under cultivation or tillage, and not confined only to land fit to be ploughed but not already ploughed or cultivated.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - Sec. 4, 5A, 17(1), 17(2), 17(3), 17(4) - Notification under Sec. 4 excluding operation of Sec. 5A - Validity - Meaning of arable land - Discrimination - Held, that the expression "arable land" in Sec.17(1) includes land brought under cultivation or tillage, and not confined only to land fit to be ploughed but not already ploughed or cultivated. - Notification excluding operation of Sec. 5A in respect of land which is not arable land is without authority of law. - No discrimination found in excluding operation of Sec. 5A in respect of some lands and not in respect of others, where the policy followed is consistent.

Fact of the Case:

The State Government issued a notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of certain lands for the development of residential neighbourhoods in Patna. The notification excluded the portions covered by houses and orchards. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.17(4) of the Act, the State Government decided that the provisions of Sec. 5A of the Act shall not apply to the owners of these lands. Some of the owners of the land challenged the notification on the ground that the exclusion of the provisions of Sec. 5A was illegal and without jurisdiction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the expression "arable land" in Sec.17(1) includes land brought under cultivation or tillage, and not confined only to land fit to be ploughed but not already ploughed or cultivated. The court further held that the notification excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of land which is not arable land is without authority of law. The court also found that there was no discrimination in excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of some lands and not in respect of others, where the policy followed is consistent.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of land which is not arable land is valid? 2. Whether there is any discrimination in excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of some lands and not in respect of others?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "arable land" in Sec.17(1) includes land brought under cultivation or tillage, and not confined only to land fit to be ploughed but not already ploughed or cultivated. The court further held that the notification excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of land which is not arable land is without authority of law. The court also found that there was no discrimination in excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of some lands and not in respect of others, where the policy followed is consistent.

Final Decision: The court quashed the notification excluding the operation of Sec. 5A in respect of land which is not arable land. The court also dismissed the petition challenging the notification in respect of land which is arable land.

Judgment

Mahapatra, J.

1. A notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894 as amended by Bihar Acts) was issued by the order of the Governor of Bihar saying that "for development of residential neighbourhoods to provide for housing facilities for various income groups along with various local services and modern amenities to facilitate planned growth of the City of Patna in the villages of Manipura No. 2, Rajapur No. 3, Dujra No. 4 and Dhakanpura No. 7 to be named as Shri Krishnapuri the Government of Bihar required certain lands to be acquired. The description of the land was given in the notification but it excluded the portions covered by houses and orchards. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government decided that in view of the project, provisions of Sec. 5A of the Act shall not apply to the owners of these lands. The notification further stated that officers of the Land Acquisition Office, Fatna, were authorised to enter upon and survey land aud to do all other acts required for the proper execution or their work as provided for or specified in Sub-section (2) of Sec. 4 of the said Act.

This notification was dated the 19th of January, 1961 but was published in an Extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette on the 24th of January 1961. Some of owners of the land made an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to this Court on the 11th of May, 1961, challenging that notification, on one of the grounds that no proceeding for acquisition of land could he taken under the Land Acquisition Act when the Patna Improvement Trust Act provided for acquisition of land for its purposes. That objection has now been finally overruled by the Supreme Court. Another ground was that exemption of the provisions of Sec. 5A from application to the proceedings, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, was illegal and without jurisdiction. Thirdly, the petitioner alleged that the notification was tainted with discrimination, inasmuch as other owners, whose lands were proposed to be acquired in the vicinity, were not deprived of the advantage under Section 5A of the Act, in the notification issued under sec. 4, in respect of their lands for the same purpose. It will be necessary to deal with those two objections in this petition.

2. A memorandum containing proposals for development of certain areas under ihe Patna Improvement Trust was prepared on the 26th of February, 1960, and on that basis the Land Acquisition Officer Patna, sent a report to the Collector of Patna, on the 6th August 1960, stating therein what actual area, under cultivation should be notified under Sec. 4 of the Act, read with Section 17(4) exempting the operation of the provisions under Sec. 5A. Finally, the impugned notification was issued by the State Government. Sec. 4 is about preliminary investigation and provides for publication of preliminary notification, when it appears to the Government that land in any locality, is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. The substance of such notification is to be given by public notice, at convenient places, in the locality. Sec. 5A provides that any person interested in any land, which has been notified under sec. 4, may within thirty days, after the issue of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. Sub-clause (2) of that section says that such objections shall be made to the Collector in writing and the objector shall be given an opportunity of being heard, whereafter the Collector will submit the case for the decision of the appropriate Government with his recommendations and the decision of the Government on the objections shall be final. After the disposal of such objections, comes the declaration of intended acquisition under section 6 by the Government.

Following that, public notice is to be given at convenient places on or























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top