Back
1968 Supreme(Goa) 3
Goa High Court
V. S. JETLEY
Latino Andre Henriques - Appellant
Versus
Union Govt., New Delhi - Respondent
Decided On : 01/05/1968
Vyankatranga Ayangar, assisted by S.V. Shrinath and B.F. D'Souza, for Petitioners; Narusu Raju, assisted by S. Tamba, for Respondents.
The Court held that the State Government has the power to acquire land for a public purpose and that this power is an offspring of political necessity and it is expressly recognized in Article 31 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - Acquisition of land for public purpose - Validity of notifications under Sections 4(1), 17(1) read with 17(4) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Challenge to the validity of preliminary notification dated 25th October 1967 published on 28th October 1967 - Whether the land notified was waste or arable - Whether the State Government applied its mind in treating the land as waste or arable - Whether the power vested in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A was exercised in a mala fide manner - Whether the land sought to be acquired is for most part within the municipal limits of Vasco-da-Gama and therefore it cannot be waste or arable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of notifications dated 5th February 1968 under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) and 20th February 1968 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). These notifications were published on 5th February 1968 and 23rd February 1968, respectively. The petitioners contended that the preliminary notification dated 25th October 1967 published on 26th October 1967 was defective for want of necessary particulars and, therefore, it should be quashed. They also contended that the land sought to be acquired was not waste or arable and that the provisions of Sections 17(1) read with 17(4) and 6 had been wrongly invoked.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notifications impugned by the petitioners were not defective for want of necessary particulars. The Court also held that the land notified was waste or arable and that the provisions of Sections 17(1) read with 17(4) and 6 had been rightly invoked. The Court further held that the State Government had applied its mind in treating the land as waste or arable and that the power vested in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A was not exercised in a mala fide manner.
Issues: 1. Whether the preliminary notification dated 25th October 1967 published on 28th October 1967 was defective for want of necessary particulars? 2. Whether the land notified was waste or arable? 3. Whether the State Government applied its mind in treating the land as waste or arable? 4. Whether the power vested in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A was exercised in a mala fide manner? 5. Whether the land sought to be acquired is for most part within the municipal limits of Vasco-da-Gama and therefore it cannot be waste or arable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notifications impugned by the petitioners were not defective for want of necessary particulars because the Act nowhere states that the question of urgency must necessarily arise simultaneously or soon after Section 4(1) notification is issued. The Court also held that the gap between the two notifications was satisfactorily explained by the respondents. 2. The Court held that the land notified was waste or arable because it was partly under cultivation and partly fallow, unused, unoccupied and uncultivated. The Court also held that the fact that some part of the land sought to be acquired was within the municipal limits of Vasco-da-Gama was no decisive consideration for regarding it as not satisfying the nomenclature of waste or arable land. 3. The Court held that the State Government had applied its mind in treating the land as waste or arable because it had personally seen the entire land and held discussions with the officers of the Navy and the representatives of the Military Estates Officer before issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 4. The Court held that the power vested in dispensing with the provisions of Section 5-A was not exercised in a mala fide manner because the State Government wanted to be satisfied that the land was waste and arable. 5. The Court held that the land sought to be acquired was not for most part within the municipal limits of Vasco-da-Gama and therefore it could be waste or arable.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the petitions in limine.
2. The respondents impleaded in Petitions Nos. 10 to 12 and 16 are - (1) the Union of India, (2) the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and (3) the Land Acquisition Officer. In Petition No. 15, in addition, the fourth respondent impleaded is the Commanding Officer, M.E.S., Panaji.
3. The respondents were required to satisfy this Court as to why rule nisi should not be issued and, in reply, affidavits are filed on their behalf stating that the petitioners in all the petitions have not made out a prima facie case.
4. The material facts common to all these petitions may be stated at the outset. By preliminary notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, if was notified that the land measuring about 4,620,576 sq. metres in taluka Marmagoa specified in the schedule was likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, Naval Air Station. On 5th February 1968 a notification was issued under Section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing from acquisition of a part of the land measuring about 299,877 sq. metres. This withdrawal was out of the land specified earlier under Section 4(1) of the Act. In regard to the remaining land measuring 3,950,652 sq. metres (excepting some part), a notification was issued on the same day applying the provisions of Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act. This was on the ground of urgency. As regards the part excepted, the provisions of Sec. 5-A were not dispensed with in pursuance of the power vested in the Government under Section 17(4). This notification was later followed by a final notification under Sec. 8 of the Act, dated 20th February 1968. By that notification it was stated that the Government was satisfied that the remaining land measuring 3,950,657 sq. metres was needed for the public purpose specified earlier and accordingly necessary declaration as contemplated by Section 6 was made and further action under Section 17(1) taken. Under Section 17(1), Government can direct the Collector, though no award has been made, to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for a public purpose, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the notice under Sec. 9 of the Act. The lands were attached to all the notifications, for inspection of the persons concerned. The land covered by preliminary notification dated 25th October 1967 published on 26th October 1967 had also been the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings started earlier by notifications issued under Sections 4(1), 11(4) and 6 of the Act, published on 11th November 1965, 25th August 1966 and 13th October 1966, respectively. These notifications were challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 186 of 1966. The principal objection against the validity of these notifications was that there had been no compliance with the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and inasmuch as the notifications issued thereunder were vague and lacked in essential particu
