The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be valid under S.40(1)(b), the work to be constructed must be of a permanent nature and directly useful to the public.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - CHALLENGE TO NOTIFICATION UNDER LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - S.4, S.17(4) - The court discussed the applicability of S.40(1)(b) of the Act and the requirement for construction of a work directly useful to the public. The court held that acquisition for providing a passage for a religious procession could be covered by S.40(1)(b) if the work is likely to prove useful to the public. The court also emphasized the need for the work to be of a permanent nature and directly useful to the public. The court found that the acquisition in question did not meet the basic requirements of S.40(1)(b) as the need for the passage through the acquired land was not a genuine and felt need for construction of the road for the use of the public. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

A Writ Petition was filed challenging the notification issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring land for providing passage to a religious procession. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the acquisition was not for a 'public purpose' but for a 'company' or society, and therefore governed by Part VII of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the acquisition did not meet the basic requirements of S.40(1)(b) of the Act as the need for the passage through the acquired land was not a genuine and felt need for construction of the road for the use of the public. The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of S.40(1)(b) of the Act and the requirement for construction of a work directly useful to the public in the context of acquiring land for providing a passage for a religious procession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acquisition for providing a passage for a religious procession could be covered by S.40(1)(b) if the work is likely to prove useful to the public. The court emphasized the need for the work to be of a permanent nature and directly useful to the public.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court.

Judgment :-

1. Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard these appeals finally and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. A Writ Petition was filed in the Kerala High Court by common Respondent No.1 herein. She challenged the notification issued by the State of Kerala under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said notification dated 22nd March, 1988 issued under S.4 of the Act provided that land admeasuring 0.028 cents situated in Kodiyeri village in Tellicherry Taluk of Cannanore district was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose for providing passage to Pallivetta procession of Sree Jagannath Temple, Tellicherry. The said notification was issued under sub-s. (1) of S.4 read with S.17(4) of the Act. It is this notification which was successfully challenged by Respondent No.1 before the High Court in her Writ Petition wherein the present appellants were joined as Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 while the State Authorities were joined as Respondent Nos. 1, 2,3 and 6. The case of Respondent No.1 before the High Court in the Writ Petition was to the effect that she is the owner and is in possession of the land in dispute being R.S. No. 38/1. That she had purchased the property by a registered assignment deed No. 1899 of 1978. At a distance of about 1 km from Respondent No. 1's property is situated Sree Jagannath Temple, which was established by Shri Narayana Guru in 1906. The said temple was managed by the present Appellant No.1- Original Respondent No.4, while present common Appellant No. 2- Original Respondent No. 5 is the President of the said Sree Jnanedaya Yogam. As part of the festival in the Jagannath Temple, a Pallivetta (Royal Hunt) is performed on the penultimate day of the festival every year. The said festival is being held in the month of March every year. It is performed at a place situated to the south of first respondent- Writ Petitioner's property. On that occasion, the deity is taken out on an elephant in procession to the place where the Pallivetta is performed. This religious function lasts for an hour. In the said function, the deity is taken down from the back of the elephant and placed at the appointed site and the devotees and the priests perform religious ceremony for propitiating the deity and a pumpkin is being cut at the said place toward off evil spirits and for earning religious merit. According to Respondent No.1-Writ Petitioner, there is no fixed route through which the elephant carrying the idol and the procession of devotees, passes every year on the aforesaid occasion. At the instance of the present appellants, a part of Respondent No. 1's land, wherein stands a pucca built shop, was sought to be acquired under the aforesaid impugned notification for having a passage for the elephant carrying the idol on the occasion of the aforesaid religious function and the said requirement for the passage of the elephant was for one hour every year in the month of March.

4. The said notification was challenged on diverse grounds before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the Original Petition and held that when acquisition was not for 'public purpose', but for a'company' or for a society like Appellant No.1, the acquisition was governed by Part VII of the Act and consequently, S.17(4) dispensing with S.5A enquiry could not get attracted.

5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, present appellant No.1- Original Respondent No. 4, filed Writ Appeal No. 377/1990 before the Division Bench of the High Court, while Original Respondent Nos. 1, 2,3 and 6 filed Writ Appeal No. 400 of 1990 challenging the very same judgment of the learned Single Judge. Both these appeals were heard together by the Division Bench of the High Court and by a common Order dated 27.1.1995, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Ker) 430

The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be valid under S.40(1)(b), the work to be constructed must be of a permanent nature and directly useful to the public.

Cases Referred (1)

Login now and unlock premium legal research