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

1952 Supreme(All) 265

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHBAD
AGARWALA, CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Brij Nath Sarin
Versus
Uttar Pradesh Government
Misc. Writ No.7878 of 1951
Decided On : 27-10-1952

Advocates:
N.P. Asthana, for Applicant; Jagnandan Lal and Standing Counsel, for Opposite Party (Nos.2 and 1 respectively).

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - WITHDRAWAL OF NOTIFICATION - RESTART OF PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.6(3), LAND ACQUISITION ACT - ART.13 AND 31, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

The Provincial Arya Pratinidhi Sabha wanted to acquire a dilapidated house in Mathura to build a library and a Yagyashala to commemorate the memory of Swami Birja Nand, the Guru of Swami Daya Nand, the founder of the Arya Samaj. The Government issued a notification under S.4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inviting objections. The applicant objected, stating that the land was not needed for any public purpose and that it was being acquired for the purpose of propaganda of Arya Samaj in a purely Sanatan Dharma locality. The Government withdrew the notification under S.48(1) of the Act, stating that the land was no more needed for a public purpose. Later, the Government restarted acquisition proceedings, issuing a fresh notification under S.4, Land Acquisition Act, on the ground that the land was needed for a public library. The applicant challenged the acquisition, arguing that the Government could not restart proceedings after withdrawing the earlier notification, that the acquisition was not for a public purpose, and that S.6(3), Land Acquisition Act, which makes the Government's declaration of public purpose conclusive, was void in view of Art.13 read with Art.31(2) of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Government was entitled to restart acquisition proceedings after withdrawing the earlier notification, as the circumstances had changed. The court also held that the acquisition of land for a public library was a public purpose, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha did not intend to build a library or that the Government was acting in bad faith. The court further held that S.6(3), Land Acquisition Act, was not void in view of Art.13 read with Art.31(2) of the Constitution, as the Land Acquisition Act was an existing law exempted from the operation of Art.31(2) by virtue of Art.31(5).

Issues: 1. Whether the Government could restart acquisition proceedings after withdrawing the earlier notification. 2. Whether the acquisition of land for a public library was a public purpose. 3. Whether S.6(3), Land Acquisition Act, was void in view of Art.13 read with Art.31(2) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government is entitled to restart acquisition proceedings after withdrawing the earlier notification if the circumstances have changed. 2. The acquisition of land for a public library is a public purpose. 3. S.6(3), Land Acquisition Act, is not void in view of Art.13 read with Art.31(2) of the Constitution, as the Land Acquisition Act is an existing law exempted from the operation of Art.31(2) by virtue of Art.31(5).

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application challenging the acquisition of land for a public library.

Judgement

AGARWALA, J. :- This is an application praying that a writ of mandamus or certiorari restraining the opposite party from proceeding with the acquisition of the applicants land may be issued and the proceedings may be quashed as being ultra vires, without jurisdiction and an abuse of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The dispute in the case relates to a dilapidated house (or as the opposite party alleges a vacant piece of land) bearing old assessment No.767 and present assessment No.802 situate in Satghara Chatta Bazar, in the city of Mathura. The opposite party No.2, the Provincial Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, wanted to acquire the disputed property to commemorate the memory of Swami Birja Nand, the Guru of Swami Daya Nand, the founder of the Arya Samaj, by building a library and a Yagyashala. On 4th October 1948 a notification was issued by the Local Government under S.4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, inviting objections under S.5-A of the said Act. The notification mentioned the fact that the land was needed for a company and the purpose specified was for "constructing a public library and a Yagyashala by the Provincial Arya Pratinidhi Sabha." The applicant filed objections under S.5-A, Land Acquisition Act stating that the land was not needed for any public purpose and that it was being acquired for the purpose of propaganda of Arya Samaj in a purely Sanatan Dharma locality where there were many Sanatan Dharmi temples. It appears that thereafter the Provincial Government, by a notification dated 27th April 1950, withdrew the notification which they had issued earlier under S.4, Land Acquisition Act. It stated :

"Whereas the land designated below was needed for a public purpose and a notification No.C-3967/XV-609-47, dated 4th October 1948, was issued to that effect under S.4(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for its acquisition;

And whereas the aforesaid land is no more needed for a public purpose;

Now therefore the Governor of the Uttar Pradesh is in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-S.(1) of S.48 of the said Act, pleased to withdraw from the acquisition and is further pleased to cancel the aforesaid notification."

3. It appears that later the opposite party No.2 through one Sri Karan Singh Chonkar, a Municipal Commissioner of Mathura, applied to the Government to reconsider its decision withdrawing the previous notification under S.4. This time the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was restricted merely to its being utilised for the building of a public library. The use of the land for the construction of a Yagyashala, as was mentioned in the previous application, was given up. The Collector, no doubt, reported to the Government that in his opinion the acquisition was not for a public purpose but was for a sectarian purpose, namely, that of the Arya Samaj. The Government, however, seems to have reconsidered the matter and under instructions from the Government the Collector wrote to the applicant either to come to some mutual agreement with the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha within a week or ten days in connection with the sale of the land or else the Government would be compelled to restart proceedings for the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act. The applicant not having agreed to the suggestion of the Collector, the Government of Uttar Pradesh restarted acquisition proceedings and issued a fresh notification under S.4, Land Acquisition Act on 23rd June 1951 which is published in the U.P. Gazette dated 30th June 1951. An objection was again raised by the applicant to the acquisition. It was, however, decided against him and ultimately under S.6, Land Acquisition Act a notification was issued declaring that the land was needed for a public purpose. This was on 19th January 1952.

4. The applicant filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge of Mathura for a permanent injunction restraining the Government from proceeding to acquire the land. He also made an application for the issu














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