Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. J. Bhave and J. P. Bajpai, JJ.
PREM BAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 1169 Of 1974
Decided On : 08/01/1975
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ACQUISITION FOR COMPANY - CHAPTER VII OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT - APPLICABILITY - PUBLICATION OF NOTIFICATION - DELAY IN TAKING POSSESSION - URGENCY - ARABLE LANDS - MEANING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging mala fide acquisition of their agricultural lands for a company without complying with Chapter VII of the Act, avoiding enquiry under Section 5-A, and not applying Section 17(1) due to lack of urgency. They also claimed the notification under Section 4 was not properly published.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no mala fide intention in the acquisition, as the State Government aimed to develop backward areas by establishing industries and providing employment opportunities. The acquisition was not for a company, as the State Government would own the land and lease it to the company. Compliance with Chapter VII of the Act was not necessary. The notification under Section 4 was duly published in the locality. The delay in taking possession was due to humanitarian grounds, allowing petitioners to cut and remove their standing crops. Section 17(1) of the Act could be applied to agricultural lands already under cultivation.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition was mala fide and for a company, requiring compliance with Chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the course of holding enquiry under Section 5-A and the opportunity of hearing objections was avoided mala fide? 3. Whether there was no material before the State Government to form an opinion that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable? 4. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published in the locality, vitiating subsequent proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acquisition was not mala fide, as the State Government aimed to develop backward areas by establishing industries and providing employment opportunities. The acquisition was not for a company, as the State Government would own the land and lease it to the company. Compliance with Chapter VII of the Act was not necessary. 2. The course of holding enquiry under Section 5-A and the opportunity of hearing objections was not avoided mala fide, as the State Government had sufficient material to form an opinion that the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable due to emergent requirements. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was duly published in the locality, as evidenced by certificates of publication and the order-sheet signed by the petitioners' counsel.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the amount of security, if any due, after necessary deductions of the costs and expenses, was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS petition has been heard along with M. P. No. 1169 of 1974 (Sardar Bahu and another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and 2 others), since both the petitions are based on similar facts and common grounds and are against the common notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri s. L. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in both the cases, had also made the statement that the arguments put forth in this petition will also be adopted for the other petition, i. e. M. P. No. 1169/ 74. Under these circumstances, the order passed in this case will also govern the disposal of M. P. No, 1169/74.
( 2 ) CERTAIN agricultural lands belonging to the petitioners in both the cases have been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the purposes of establishing industry in Sagar district and the said purpose has been declared as public purpose for which acquisition has been made by the state Government Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 have been issued on 79-1974 and 17/9/1974 respectively and they were published in the Madhya pradesh Gazette dated 13/9/1974 and 27/9/1974 accordingly.
( 3 ) THE petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notifications on the ground that the proceedings taken for acquiring their lands are mala fide and have been taken in colourable exercise of powers under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioners, the acquisition of lands is for the purpose of a company, i. e. M/s. Central India Paper and Board Mills (Pvt.) Limited, in which one Rajkumar Jain is interested. According to them, the purpose of establishing the industry is not a public purpose. The petitioners urged that since the acquisition is for the company, the proceedings are vitiated for want of non-compliance of the provisions of chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, which is mandatory in cases of acquisition for companies. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also urged that the course of holding enquiry under Section 5-A and the opportunity of hearing objections has been avoided mala fide. There was no material before the State Government for forming an opinion that the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act were applicable and as such, due to emergent requirements, there was no necessity for applying the provisions of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act regarding enquiry before issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that since the lands, already under cultivation, cannot be treated as arable lands, Section 17 (1) of the Act could not be applied to the present case concerning agricultural lands already under cultivation. It was also urged that since the notification under Section 4 of the Act has not been published in the locality by affixing a copy of the same and promulgating, in the neighbouring area, subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the said notification under Section 4 of the Act are illegal and vitiated.
( 4 ) THE respondents, State of Madhya Pradesh and the Land Acquisition Officer filed a return. It has been stated that after formation of the new State of madhya Pradesh on 1-11-1956, several backward areas in the State were to be given proper opportunity for economic development and it was necessary to solve the burning problem of unemployment in such areas. It has been shown that the area comprised in tahsil Sagar in the central region has been declared as backward area by the Government of India. The State Government took a decision to see that industries and other projects are established in such area so that there may be industrial development resulting in opportunities of employment and financial improvements of the inhabitants in that area. The state Government, for this purpose, decided to provide facilities regarding land, electricity and other issues so as to attract the industrialists for establishing the requisite industries
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
