Back
1959 Supreme(Ker) 96
Judges : N.VARADARAJA IYENGAR
Moosa - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : O. P. No. 48 of 1959
Decided On : 03/26/1959
Advocates Appeared :
B. Pocker; K. M. Seethy; B. Moosakutty; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
Acquisition for the purpose of housing poor people and relieving congestion is considered a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - S.4(1), S.5(A), S.6 - The court discussed the concept of public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act and cited precedents to establish that acquisition for the purpose of housing poor people and relieving congestion is considered a public purpose. The court held that the acquisition of the land in question was for public purpose and dismissed the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution against the acquisition of land by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The main grounds raised were that the acquisition was not for public purpose and that it was mala fide due to the involvement of a specific individual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition was for public purpose as it aimed to house poor people and relieve congestion, which was considered a public benefit. The court also dismissed the mala fides claim due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The issues raised were the public purpose of the acquisition and the alleged mala fides in aiding a specific individual's scheme of revenge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited precedents to establish that acquisition for the purpose of housing poor people and relieving congestion is considered a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's claims.
1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution complaining against the acquisition by Government under the Land Acquisition Act, of 6 cents out of S. No. 56/2 in Badagara amsom in Kurumbranad Taluk belonging in jenm to the Kovilakam of Kadathanat Valia Raja and outstanding on kanom kuzhikanam with the petitioner.
2. It appeared that Kannan, a Harijan, was living in a but inside the plot proposed to be acquired as lessee under the petitioner and on account of continuous non-payment of rent, proceedings by way of eviction had been taken against him on 11-8-1955. And because he still continued to occupy the premises, proceedings for trespass were started against him by the Police and he had to furnish security for good behaviour. Soon later the question of housing him was taken up by the Madras Government on the motion of the Director of Harijan Welfare and the decision was then taken of acquiring the plot here at Government expense, for the purpose. Following this, the S.4 (1) Notification was published on 30-10-1956, the provisions of S.5 (A) were dispensed with and orders for urgent assumption of possession were also passed. The States Reorganisation Act then intervened and so the S.6 Notification was published in Kerala Gazette on 31-12-1957 in completion of the preliminaries. Hence this petition, and the main ground raised are two-fold: (1) that the acquisition of the land was not for public purpose within the meaning of S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act inasmuch as one individual alone was benefitted thereby, and (ii) that the acquisition was mala fide in that Kannan was already possessed of other property and dwelling house and the Government had here only lent their aid to a scheme of revenge evolved by Kannan as against his quandum landlord.
3. The Respondents, viz. the State, the Collector of Kozhikode and the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition (Harijans), Kozhikode question the grounds relied on and further assert that the petition is not maintainable in view to the dismissal of prior petition O.P. 56 of 1958 filed by the petitioner in the same matter.
4. The second ground of mala fides can be easily disposed of. For the only fact on which it was sought to be rested, viz. the possession by Kannan of 19 cents in R.S. 13/2 in Pulayad desom in the same taluk, it is now conceded is not made out. In fact it was for the inclusion of this aspect in the petition that the first petition 0. P. 56 of 1958 had been allowed to be withdrawn and the fresh petition herein was filed. It is unnecessary to add that no question of mala fides can arise from the mere fact, that an acquisition which is otherwise proper, sets at nought the continuous prior efforts of the owner to get the property from the persons benefitted by the acquisition, even though directly.
5. The first question as to "public purpose" is now well settled, whatever might have been the difficulty about it some time ago. For as observed in Willis Constitutional Law:
"On this question there have been two view points. One may be called the older view point and the other the newer view point. According to the older view point, in order to have a public use, there must be a use by the public... According to the newer view point there is a public use if the thing taken is useful to the public. In these cases there is not necessarily a general use by the public, but there is a general benefit to the public. Private enterprises are thus allowed to exercise sovereign power of eminent domain, not because they are taking the property for their own use, but because in taking the property for their use they are benefitting the public."
So it was held in Padayachi v. State of Madras, AIR. 1952 Mad. 756 that acquisition of property for public purpose under Art.31 (2) of the Constitution includes whatever results in advantage to the public. It is not necessary that it should be available to the public as such. It might be in favour of individuals provided they are ben
