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

1977 Supreme(Pat) 138

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Jha and S.Ali Ahmad JJ.
Ram Narain Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1041 of 1969 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 10, 1977

The acquisition of land for the expansion of a hospital, although run by a private institution, is for a public purpose, and a token contribution from the State Exchequer towards the cost of acquisition satisfies the requirement of the proviso to S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - PARTIAL PAYMENT FROM CONSOLIDATED FUND - VALIDITY OF DECLARATION - L.A. ACT, 1894, S. 6(1), PROVISO.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that the acquisition was neither for a public purpose nor in conformity with the proviso to S. 6(1) of the Act. The notification and declaration under S. 6(1) were challenged as being ultra vires the provisions of Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, as the expansion of a hospital, although run by a private institution, is not averse to the concept of public purpose. The Court also held that the declaration under S. 6(1) was valid as the contribution from the State Exchequer, although nominal, satisfied the requirement of the proviso to S. 6(1).

Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land for the expansion of a hospital run by a private institution is for a public purpose? 2. Whether a token contribution from the State Exchequer towards the cost of acquisition satisfies the requirement of the proviso to S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the acquisition of land for the expansion of a hospital, although run by a private institution, is for a public purpose. The Court reasoned that public purpose may be achieved through private enterprise as well as through any public agency. There is no provision in the Act precluding the acquisition at the instance of a private agency so long as the purpose for acquisition is a public purpose. 2. The Court held that a token contribution from the State Exchequer towards the cost of acquisition satisfies the requirement of the proviso to S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court reasoned that the term 'part' in the proviso does not necessarily mean a substantial part and that it will be open to the court in every case which comes up before it to examine whether the contribution made by the State satisfies the requirement of the law.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition was for a public purpose and that the declaration under S. 6(1) was valid.

Judgment

S.K.JHA, J.

1. In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is involved the objection to a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on the ground that the acquisition is neither for public purpose nor in conformity with the proviso to S. 6 (1) of the Act. The petitioners - four in number - have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash the notification dated 22-4-1967 under S. 4 of the Act numbered as L. A. Patna-11/66/67/5 and the declaration under S. 6 (1) dated 21-6-1967 published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated 12-7-1967. The notification and the declaration aforesaid have been marked annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the petition. A further prayer has been made for the issuance of writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners possession over the land sought to be acquired. It may be usefully mentioned here that the area of land under acquisition is 3.0447 acres in village Mainpura, within police station Phulwari in the district of Patna. The notification states that the acquisition was sought to be made by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for the Kurji Holy Family Hospital, respondent No. 2, at Government cost. In the declaration (annexure 2) it has been specifically stated that the public purpose for which Government sought to acquire the land in question was the expansion of Kurji Holy Family Hospital at Government cost. Both annexures 1 and 2 have been assailed as being ultra vires the provisions of Ss. 4 and 6 of the Act.

2. According to the petitioners case, the Kurji Holy Family Hospital, for the expansion of which the land was sought to be acquired, was a private institution which was already in possession of about 11 acres of land since long, which, it is said, is being utilised as orchard and from out of which the hospital is doing business. It has not made any construction in the land so far, while the petitioners have no other land since all their other lands have already been acquired by the State Government in connection with other projects. The entire compensation to be awarded, according to the petitioners, is being paid by respondent No. 2 and nothing is being paid out of the consolidated fund of the State. On 9-8-1967 the petitioners received a notice under S. 9 in pursuance of which they filed an objection, a copy whereof has been marked annexure 5 to the application. Their objections not having found any favour, the petitioners were compelled to come to this Court for the reliefs mentioned above.

3. Counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the State and respondent No. 2, the Administrator, Kurji Holy Family Hospital. They are substantially on the same lines. It is said that the hospital is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is a charitable institution which started catering to the needs of diseased public with 160 beds; the number of beds having been increased from time to time had reached 314 at the relevant date. It has further been asserted that it is incorrect to say that nothing is to be paid by the Government. I think it is worthwhile to quote the stand of the respondents as is to be found in para 5 of the counter-affidavit of the State to the effect that-

".........it is incorrect to say that nothing is being paid out of the consolidated fund of the State. Administrative approval of the State Government is accorded to the above noted project at an estimated cost of Rs. 54,000.00 (Rupees fifty-four thousand only). The cost is debitable to the head 29 Medical Works - Original Works- Medical - Acquisition of land for the Kurji Holy Family Hospital. Funds will be provided by means of a schedule in the Ist supplementary statement of expenditure 65-66, vide Government Order No. IHI-7031/64-323(1)/H dated 19-11-1966. The award is for Rupees 1,67,358.48."

4. Although it appears that the Kurji Holy Fa








































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