Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. Basu
JATADHAR MITRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. 1140 (W) Of 1967
Decided On : JUNE 03, 1969
LAND ACQUISITION - Public purpose - Company provisions - Contribution by Government - Mala fides - Waste or arable land - Urgency - Declaration under Section 6 - Validity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the Section 4 notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds that the purposes mentioned in the notification did not constitute a 'public purpose', no part of the expenses for the acquisition was being paid by the Government, the respondent company for which the lands were sought to be acquired was a 'company' hence, the proceedings were not valid as there has been no compliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act, the plots included in Schedule A were not 'waste and arable' lands and, therefore, Section 17 (4) of the Act is not applicable to them and the impugned proceedings were colourable and mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the purposes mentioned in the notification constituted a 'public purpose' and the 'company provisions' of the Act need not be complied with in the instant case, even though the acquisition was for the benefit of a company, i. e. , respondent no. 4, provided the other tests for acquisition for a public purpose were satisfied. The Court further held that the contribution of Rs. 10/- by the Government was a 'token grant' and the acquisition could not be held to be a colourable one or an acquisition for the purposes of the company and not for a public purpose. The Court also held that the disputed lands were not 'waste or arable' lands within the meaning of Sub-sections (1) and (4) 01 Section 17, so that the inquiry under Section 5a could not lawfully be dispensed with. The declaration under Section 6 must, accordingly, be struck down as invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the purposes mentioned in the notification constituted a 'public purpose'? 2. Whether the 'company provisions' of the Act need to be complied with in the instant case? 3. Whether the contribution of Rs. 10/- by the Government was a 'token grant'? 4. Whether the acquisition could be held to be a colourable one or an acquisition for the purposes of the company and not for a public purpose? 5. Whether the disputed lands were 'waste or arable' lands within the meaning of Sub-sections (1) and (4) 01 Section 17?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the purposes mentioned in the notification constituted a 'public purpose' and the 'company provisions' of the Act need not be complied with in the instant case, even though the acquisition was for the benefit of a company, i. e. , respondent no. 4, provided the other tests for acquisition for a public purpose were satisfied. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Barkya v. State of Bombay and R. L. Arora v. State of U. P. to hold that where the declaration recites that the land is needed for a 'public purpose' and the compensation is payable out of the public revenues, in the foregoing sense, the acquisition would not be invalid even, though the acquisition is primarily for an individual or a company. 2. The Court held that the contribution of Rs. 10/- by the Government was a 'token grant' and the acquisition could not be held to be a colourable one or an acquisition for the purposes of the company and not for a public purpose. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Somawanti v. State of Punjab to hold that where Government does not pay the whole of the compensation money, it must contribute a substantial portion of it; otherwise, it would be an abuse of the statutory power of the Government to compulsorily acquire private property. 3. The Court held that the disputed lands were not 'waste or arable' lands within the meaning of Sub-sections (1) and (4) 01 Section 17, so that the inquiry under Section 5a could not lawfully be dispensed with. The declaration under Section 6 must, accordingly, be struck down as invalid. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Raja Anand v. State of U. P. to hold that Section 17 (4) cannot be applied to any land which is shown not to be arable or waste.
Final Decision: The Court discharged C. R. 1140 (W)/67, excepting that the last paragraph of the notification at Annexure B to the petition in that case shall be deemed to be cancelled. C. R. 295 (W)/62 was made absolute and the declaration under Section 6 at Annexure B of the petition thereto was quashed. But respondents shall have the liberty to make a fresh declaration according to law after complying with the requirements of Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act.
( 1 ) THESE two Rules relate to the same proceeding for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Though numbered later, C. R. 1140 (W)/67 is, in fact, earlier in point of time.
( 2 ) THE two cases relate to proceedings for acquisition of the petitioners' land as described at Annexure A of the petition, under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The notification under Section 4 was issued as early as the 2nd Feb. 1962 and is to be found at Annexure B to the Petition in C. R. 1140. Shortly after this notification was issued, on March 27, 1962, the petitioners moved this Court under Art 226 of the Constitution and obtained C. R. 204 (W)/62. That petition was, however, withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh one and by virtue of that liberty, the petitioners filed the petition on May 28, 1962, which was numbered 320 (W)/62, but that was dismissed in limine. On appeal, that order of dismissal was set aside and a Rule was issued by the Appeal Bench, on July 3, 1967 and that Rule now constitutes C. R. 1140 (W)/67. As stated earlier, C. R. 1140 challenges the validity of the Section 4 notification only.
( 3 ) ON May 16, 1962, the petitioners brought the next petition which has been numbered C. R. 295 (W)/62, on the allegation that when they had brought the earlier application on March 27, 1962, they had no knowledge that a declaration under Section 6, too, had been issued in the Acquisition proceedings in respect of the disputed lands, but that they had since come to know of it from the copy of a petition of Respondent no. 4 (Konnagar Kalyan Parishad) served upon them on April 30, 1962. In this petition, therefore, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the declaration under Section 6, dated February 27, 1962, which is to be found at Annexure B of the petition in C. R. 295.
( 4 ) IT would be useful to set out the text of the Section 4 notification:"whereas it appears to the Governor that land is likely to be needed for a public purpose. . . . . for the construction of educational institutions, staff quarters and swimming pool etc. of the Konnagar Kalyan Parishad. . . it is hereby notified that a piece of land comprising the survey plots as described in Schedules A and B below. . . , is likely to be needed for the aforesaid public purpose partly at the public expense and partly at the expense of the Konnagar Kalyan Parishad. . . . . "
( 5 ) SCHEDULE A includes certain 'waste and arable lands' and specifies plots 1722, 1725 1727, 1728 and 1729.
( 6 ) SCHEDULE B relates to 'other than waste and arable lands' and mentions: (a) Plot 1723 in full and (b) 1850 in part.
( 7 ) APPLYING Section 17 (4} to the lands included in Schedule A, the hearing of objections under Section 5a of the Act has been dispensed with, with respect to these lands.
( 8 ) THE aforesaid notification is challenged on the grounds that - (a) The purposes mentioned in the notification do not constitute a 'public purpose. ' (b) No part of the expenses for the acquisition is being paid by the Government. (c) Respondent 4 (the Kannagore Kalyan Parishad), for which the lands are sought to be acquired is a 'company' hence, the proceedings are not valid as there has been no compliance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. (d) The plots included in Schedule A are not 'waste and arable' lands and, therefore, Section 17 (4) of the Act is not applicable to them and the opinion of the Governor to this effect is not founded on any materials. (e) The impugned proceedings are colourable and mala fide.
( 9 ) THE declaration under Section 6 substantially reproduces the recitals in the Section 4 notification, substituting the word 'needed' for the words 'likely to be needed', and omitting the plots included in Schedule B of the Section 4 notification. The grounds of challenge by the petitioner against the declaration are substantially the same as those against the notification.
( 10 ) I. Existence of a public purpose. Sin
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
