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

1969 Supreme(P&H) 52

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.K.Mahajan, Shamsher Bahadur and R.S.Narula JJ.
Printers House Private Ltd.
Versus
Misri Lal Dalip Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 20 of 1966,29 of 1966,
Civil Writ No. 917 of 1967,
Decided On : APRIL 18, 1969

The doctrine of ejusdem generis does not apply to the interpretation of Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - URGENCY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - EJUSTEM GENERIS - SECTION 17(2)(C) - PUBLIC PURPOSE - REASONABLE CONCLUSION.

Fact of the Case:

The State of Punjab acquired 113 Kanals and 17 Marias of land in village Ranhera for a public purpose under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land included an area of 12 Kanals and 1 Maria in possession of Misri Lal, who ran an electric wooden saw mill and chaff-cutting machine. Misri Lal challenged the acquisition in a suit under Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, arguing that the notification under Section 17 was illegal and ultra vires.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the notification under Section 17 was valid and dismissed the suit. The Court found that the acquisition of land for the construction of a Text Books Sales Depot at Rohtak was a public purpose of urgent importance. The Court also held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis did not apply to the interpretation of Section 17(2)(c) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was illegal and ultra vires? 2. Whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis applied to the interpretation of Section 17(2)(c) of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification under Section 17 was valid because: (a) The acquisition of land for the construction of a Text Books Sales Depot at Rohtak was a public purpose of urgent importance. (b) The State Government had reached a reasonable conclusion regarding the existence of urgency. 2. The Court held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis did not apply to the interpretation of Section 17(2)(c) of the Act because: (a) Clause (c) of Section 17(2) dealt with an independent situation and was a category by itself. (b) There was no common thread running between clause (c) and the previous clauses (a) and (b). (c) There were no specified categories or classes in clauses (a) or (b) which might be coupled with what was required in clause (c).

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

Judgment

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. Two Letters Patent appeals. The Printers House (Private) Limited v. Misri Lal etc. (L. P. A. No. 20 of 1966) and State of Punjab v. Misri Lal etc. (L. P. A. No. 29 of 1966) arising out of the same judgment of Grover J. of 28th October, 1965 in Misri Lal v. Punjab State, (R. S. A. No. 1536 of 1964) referred to a Full Bench by the order of the Division Bench of Chief Justice Mehar Singh and Harbans Singh J. of 25th April, 1967, would be disposed of by this judgment. The question of law which has arisen in these appeals is common to Civil Writ No. 917 of 1967 which in consequence of the referring order of Mahajan J. of 28th November, 1967, is also before us. Mahajan J. directed this writ petition to be heard along with the letters patent appeals, the question of law being the same. As this writ petition will have to be decided on its own facts, it would go before a learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with the decision of this Full Bench on the legal questions. The direction which is being given towards the close of this judgment with regard to this writ petition is that it should be listed for hearing next week before a learned Single Judge.

2. It would be necessary to reiterate the facts set out in detail both by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal and Harbans Singh J. in the referring order as it is eventually on these that the decision would turn after the Full Bench has formulated its opinion on the questions of law referred to it.

3. Land measuring 113 Kanals and 17 Marias in village Ranhera in Ballabgarh tehsil, out of which an area of 12 Kanals and 1 Maria is in possession of the respondent Misri Lal for carrying on the business of running an electric wooden saw mill and chaff-cutting machine, came to be acquired by two notifications issued by the State of Punjab on 28th March, 1961, the first under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) and the second under the provisions of Section 17. It is interesting to observe in retrospect that the object of urgency has been frustrated altogether by a resort to the special provisions of Section 17, the validity of which has been the primary concern of the litigation giving rise to these Letters Patent appeals. The case is not a solitary illustration of its kind and might usefully provide the State Government with an object lesson that acquisition of land for public purposes can be effectuated more speedily by taking the ordinary recourse of notification under Section 4, instead of coupling it with a simultaneous notification under Sec. 17 -- a procedure which not infrequently generates discussion and controversy. The only advantage to be gained by invoking the urgency provisions of Section 17 of the Act is to get over the time-consuming process of hearing objections to acquisition under Section 5-A and in many cases one is left to wonder whether out of the two choices the hearing of objections would not in the long run have been a process involving a shorter period which elapses between the issue of intention (sic: impugned) notification under Section 4 and the actual possession of the land to be acquired.

4. In the second notification it was mentioned that in view of the urgency of the acquisition, the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act directed the Land Acquisition Officer, Falwal, to proceed to take possession at once. The threat of immediate possession stirred Misri Lal, the occupier of a portion of the acquired land, to come first to this Court in writ proceedings. While Grover, J., declined to interfere in view of the disputed questions of fact raised in the petition, it was mentioned in his order of 16th August, 1962, in Civil Writ No. 709 of 1961, that the matters agitated could more appropriately be decided in a suit. The suit giving rise to these appeals was then filed by Misri Lal under Section 54 of the Specific Rel





















































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top