Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Heisnam Chonjon Singh
Versus
Union Territory of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 8 of 1965
Decided On : 31-03-1967
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - DECLARATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPENSATION - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - LEGALITY OF ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4(1), 5A, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the government to acquire his land for a village cattle path. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were illegal as they violated the provisions of Sections 17 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The government, on the other hand, argued that the acquisition was necessary for a public purpose and that the provisions of the Act were duly followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings were illegal on the following grounds: 1. The government failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-Sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The land in question was not waste or arable land, and the government did not make a separate declaration dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. 2. The government failed to comply with the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. The compensation to be awarded was not to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. 3. The government's exercise of its right to acquire the land was a colourable exercise of its power, as it was actuated by ulterior motives and not by a genuine need for a public purpose.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition proceedings were illegal as being contrary to the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the proceedings taken by the respondents were illegal being contrary to the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition proceedings were illegal as the government failed to comply with the provisions of Sub-Sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act. The land in question was not waste or arable land, and the government did not make a separate declaration dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. 2. The court held that the acquisition proceedings were illegal as the government failed to comply with the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Act. The compensation to be awarded was not to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. 3. The court held that the government's exercise of its right to acquire the land was a colourable exercise of its power, as it was actuated by ulterior motives and not by a genuine need for a public purpose.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the various Notifications and orders issued by the respondents regarding the land in question.
This is a Writ Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ of like nature for declaring Notifications Nos. 136/5/64-M dated 21-7-64, 136/5/64-M dated 16-2-1965 and the subsequent Notifications or Orders issued by the Government of Manipur Secretariat (Revenue Branch) acquiring 30 acres in Dag Number 1031 and .03 acres in Dag No. 1032, covered by old Patta No. 65/761 and 631 B. T. corresponding to new Patta No. 65/60 B.T., situate in Thanga Nongmaikhong village, belonging to the petitioner, under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894) (hereinafter called as the Act) as illegal and for restraining the respondents from acting in pursuance of the aforesaid Notifications.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the land covered by old Patta Nos. 65/761 and 631 B.T., corresponding to new Patta No. 65/60 B.T. situate in Nongmaikhong village. The land consists of home-stead and paddy land. In the recent survey operations, it was divided into five dags of land, namely. Dags Nos. 1031, 1032, 1034, 1036 and 1037. As the preparation of final publication of the records of rights was not yet done, the division of dags was not finally approved. Some Congress workers of Nongmaikhong village, led by Ningthoujam Gulamjat Singh and others, filed an application before the A. S. and S O. Moirang, alleging that the petitioner encroached into the village cattle path and prayed for his eviction therefrom The A.S. and S.O. registered the case in Miscellaneous Case 1031 of 1963 and made an enquiry. But, he did not find any encroachment. The above Congress workers again approached the Chief Minister, Government of Manipur with the same allegations. The Chief Minister forwarded the application to the Settlement Officer for necessary action. As directed by the Settlement Officer the D.S.O.-II conducted an enquiry on 8-1-1964. But, he too did not find any encroachment.
3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the then Chief Minister, who was an elected member from the constituency wherein the petitioner lives, thought that the petitioner did not cast his vote in the previous general election in his favour. So, the then Finance Minister ordered the Collector (the second respondent) to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of village cattle path. Accordingly, the second respondent requested the Secretary (R. and M) of the Government of Manipur to make the necessary publication of notices in the Gazette. But, the secretary (R. and M.) asked the second respondent through his Memo No. 136/5/64-M dated 20-5-1964 to intimate him the circumstances, which warranted the absolute necessity to acquire the land of the petitioner. The second respondent sent a reply in his Memo No. 301/R/15/18 dated 5-6-1964 that the purpose was to provide for a cattle path. But, the secretary (R. and M,), Government of Manipur further asked the second respondent by his letter No. 136/5/64-M dated 18-6-1964 to state whether there was any other cattle path in the village. The second respondent, however, did not give any answer to that question. But he informed the Secretary (R. and M.) through his Memo 301/R/2056 dated 14-7-1964 that the question whether there was any other cattle path or not did not arise as the matter was initiated by the Finance Minister.
4. The petitioner further alleges in his petition that there has been a village cattle path from times immemorial to enable the villagers to take their cattle along it to graze in and near the village fishery. There are a number of houses around the petitioners house and paddy fields. Another path could be acquired by the Government, if necessary, through some other lands shorter in length than the proposed cattle path, sought to be provided for through the petitioners Dag Nos. 1031 and 1032. But, on account of malice and ill-will the petitioner was singled out. The Under Secretary (R and M), Government of Manipur issued a Notificatio
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
