SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(P&H) 126

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.R.Sodhi, J.
Suresh Verma
Versus
State Of Punjab
of,
Civil Writ No. 1852 of 1970,
Decided On : AUGUST 31, 1970

The State Government is entitled to acquire land for a public purpose and is not required to release the land if it changes the purpose of the acquisition after the land has vested in it.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 6, 17, 48 - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE - CHANGE OF PURPOSE AFTER ACQUISITION - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the acquisition of his land by the State Government for the construction of a bus stand, alleging that the acquisition was colourable and that the land was actually intended for other purposes. The State Government argued that the acquisition was made in good faith and that it was entitled to change the purpose of the acquisition after the land had vested in it.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the acquisition was not colourable and that the State Government had acted in good faith. It also held that the State Government was entitled to change the purpose of the acquisition after the land had vested in it, and that the petitioner was not entitled to have the land released to him.

Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of the land was colourable and mala fide. 2. Whether the State Government was entitled to change the purpose of the acquisition after the land had vested in it. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the land released to him.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the acquisition was not colourable and that the State Government had acted in good faith, based on the evidence that the Government had actually spent Rs.66,000/- towards the construction of the bus stand. 2. The court held that the State Government was entitled to change the purpose of the acquisition after the land had vested in it, as the land had become the property of the State Government and it was free to use it for any purpose it liked. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to have the land released to him, as he had no legal right to claim such release.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition.

Judgment


1. This is a petition against the State Government asking for the quashing of the notifications whereby land of the petitioner measuring about 2352 square yards situate in the estate of village Saleem Tabri, Tahsil and District Ludhiana, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 . (hereinafter called the Act ).

2. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased this piece of land and leased out the same to Burmah Shell Company for a term of 20 years with effect from 1st February, 1968, on a monthly rent of Rs.220/- to enable them to install petrol and diesel pumps. He has placed on the record a letter. Annexure a from the Burmah Shell Company to show that the averment that he had rented out the land to the said Company is correct. There is no dispute with regard to this averment but what we find is that the State Government issued two notifications on 10th June, 1968, one purporting to be under Sec.4 of the Act and the other under Sec.17 dispensing with the necessity of following the procedure in the matter of hearing objections as envisaged in Sec.5-A of the Act. Sec.17 gives special powers in cases of urgency and at the time of issue of these notifications the Government declared that the land was required at public expenses for the construction of a bus stand in Ludhiana City. A notification under Sec.6 was also subsequently issued. Possession of the land was taken by a Government on 5th July, 1968 and the Government actually started construction of the bus stand and the executive file which has been produced before me by Mr. Harphool Singh goes to show that the Government had invested about Rs.66,000/- towards the said construction. The award in regard to compensation had not yet been made by the Collector when with the change of Ministry in the State, it was decided by the Chief Minister on 21st August, 1969, that instead of having a bus stand at the acquired site the same be utilised for other purposes. About half the land measuring nearly 6 acres was decided to be handed over immediately to the Punjab Agro-Industries Corporation, respondent, a State-owned undertaking, to enable it to build up a workshop. This Corporation is registered under the Indian Companies Act with its head office at Chandigarh. Amongst the several objects of the Corporation, some relate to the manufacture of agricultural implements and other equipments needed for the promotion or conduct of commercial or industrial enterprises which the Government wants to encourage. The Chief Minister also took the decision that the compensation for the area passed on to the Corporation would have to be paid by the latter. The petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister pointing out the losses suffered by him as a result of not having been able to avail of the lease which he had entered into with the Burmah Shell Company but the land was never released. He then came up to this Court with a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to have the notifications issued under Sec.4, 6 and 17 of the Act quashed and get the land released for his use. A return has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and the State, in a brief affidavit sworn by Shri Ujagar Singh, Joint Director, State Transport, adopted the same written statement.

3. Mr. Ranbir Partap Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before me: 1. That the State Government acquired the site belonging to the petitioner by a colourable exercise of its authority inasmuch as the same was intended to be used for purposes other than the construction of a bus stand: 2. That the acquisition being really for the Corporation, it was incumbent on the State Government to have followed the procedure as contained in Part VII of the Act. The argument is that on the Governments own showing the entire compensation for the land given to the Corporation was to be paid by the Corporation and when no money was to be paid towards compensation ou




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top