Back
1963 Supreme(All) 24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. U. Beg, J.
SHYAM SWARUP SAKSENA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Writ Petn. 152 Of 1961
Decided On : 02/02/1963
M.M.LAL, P.L.Kaul
The declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - PUBLIC PURPOSE - CHANGE OF PURPOSE - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 AND 6 - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - MAHANAGAR HOUSING SCHEME - ACQUISITION FOR COMPANY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC PURPOSE - DIRECTION TO EXCLUDE SECTION 5-A - WASTE OR ARABLE LAND.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings taken on the basis of the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds of change of public purpose, non-applicability of Section 5-A of the Act, and delay in filing the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
1. The change of public purpose from construction of Government buildings to the extension of Mahanagar Housing Scheme by the Municipal Board was permissible under the Act as it was a modification of the scheme and the agency through which it was to be carried out, and both purposes were public in nature. 2. The notification under Section 4 of the Act is of a provisional character and does not bear the stamp of immutability, while the declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. 3. The direction in the notification under Section 4 that Section 5-A of the Act would not apply to the proceedings was valid as the land in question was waste or arable land in 1946. 4. The delay in filing the writ petition was not satisfactorily explained and the petition was liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of delay.
Issues: 1. Whether the change of public purpose from construction of Government buildings to the extension of Mahanagar Housing Scheme by the Municipal Board was permissible under the Act? 2. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Act is of a provisional character and does not bear the stamp of immutability, while the declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose? 3. Whether the direction in the notification under Section 4 that Section 5-A of the Act would not apply to the proceedings was valid? 4. Whether the delay in filing the writ petition was satisfactorily explained?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of Section 4 of the Act is to enable the government to make a preliminary investigation into the propriety of acquisition, while the purpose of Section 6 is to make a final declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose. The declaration under Section 6 is conclusive evidence of the fact that the land is indeed for such purpose. 2. The notification under Section 4 is made only to authorise any officer appointed by the government or his servants or workmen to enter upon the land, survey it, take its levels, dig it, bore into its sub-soil, mark its boundaries, and do all acts necessary to ascertain whether, the land is adapted for a public purpose. 3. Section 6 (3) of the Act makes a declaration of the State Government declaring a particular acquisition to be for a public purpose conclusive; and where such a declaration is made, the Courts are debarred from going into the question whether the purpose of the acquisition was public or not. 4. Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 17 of the Act indicate that a direction that Section 5-A of the Act will not apply to the proceedings could only be made in 1946 if the land which was sought to be acquired was "waste or arable land".
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by Shyam Swamp Saksena praying that a writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction may be Issued restraining opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 from continuing the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in village Sheikhapur, pargana, tahsil and District Lucknow, mentioned in the notice purporting to be under Section 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) and for quashing the said notice and all notifications and orders in con-nection with the aforesaid proceedings. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition are :
(1) The State of Uttar Pradesh. (2) The Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow, and (3) The Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow. Opposite party No. 4 is Suresh Chand Rupainwar.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the purchaser of a share in a portion of two plots, viz. , plots Nos. 551/1 and 652/2, situate in village Sheikhapur, pergana, tahsil and district Lucknow from one Ram Sumiran singh. The total area of the two plots was two Bighas and one Biswa. Ram Sumiran Singh held both these plots originally as a sirdar. On the 25th June, 1954, he obtained a bhumidhari sanad in respect of these plots under Section 137 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, by paying ten times the land revenue in respect thereof. Out of the total area of 2 Bighas and one biswa, by a sale deed dated the 7th August, 1955, Ram Sumiran Singh sold one Bigha and 17 biswas to two persons, viz. , Shyam Swarup Saksena, who is the petitioner, and Suresh chand Rupainwar, who is opposite party No. 4, in this petition. The share of the petitioner in the property sold was 3/4th and the share of the opposite party No. 4 was one-fourth. The remaining four biswas were transferred to two other persons, viz. Saligram and Sheo Ratan on the same date.
( 3 ) VILLAGE Sheikhapur was the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings under the Land acquisition Act (Act No. 1 of 1894) hereinafter referred to as "the Act. " The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on the 26th September, 1945. This notification fs appended as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It indicates that seventeen villages, including sheikhapur, were intended to be acquired by the Government. The purpose of acquisition, as stated in the said notification, is:
"construction of Government buildings by the Public Works Department. "
The notification also stated that the Government had directed that the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act Would not apply to the said proceedings.
( 4 ) NOTIFICATION under Section 6 of the Act was issued on the 18th February, 1959. In this notification, the purpose of acquisition as stated therein is:
"the extension of Mahanagar Housing Scheme by Municipal Board, Lucknow. "
It is also stated in this notification that the case being one of urgency the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (la) of Section 17 of the Act was pleased to direct that the Collector may take possession of the land mentioned in the Schedule on the expiration of 15 days of the publication of the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act. Thereafter proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were taken, and notices to persons interested in claiming compensation were issued. Notice under Section 9 (3) of the Act was served on the petitioner on the 28th December, 1960. This notice is filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The present writ petition was filed in Court on the 10th July, 1961. In the writ petition the validity of the acquisition proceedings taken on the basis of the aforementioned notification under Section 6 of the Act was challenged on a number of grounds.
( 5 ) BEFORE me the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced oniy three arguments in support of the writ petition. They are:
1. That the public purpose specified in the notification under Section 6 of the Act was not the same as that specified in the notificat
