Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. A. KHAN, SHAMBHOO SINGH
GAJANAND - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
L. P. A. 118 Of 1996
Decided On : 07/23/1999
LAND ACQUISITION - PUBLIC PURPOSE - VAGUENESS - EXPLANATION IN SECTION 5-A NOTICE - OBJECTIONS - MALA FIDE - COLOURABLE EXERCISE OF POWER - SUITABILITY OF LAND - NATIONAL SECURITY - JURISDICTION - DELEGATION OF POWER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, Bhumi Swamies of around 63 acres of land, challenged the acquisition of their land for the establishment of a "diamond Park", an industrial area to accommodate diamond cutting and polishing units. They contended that the stated public purpose was vague, the acquisition was mala fide, and the land was unsuitable for the specified purpose.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the stated public purpose, "establishment of Diamond Park," was not vague and indefinite, and the explanation provided in the Section 5-A notice was valid. The Court also found that the acquisition was not mala fide or in colourable exercise of power, and that the land was suitable for the stated purpose. The Court further held that the acquisition was within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Commissioner and Collector, who were duly authorized to exercise the power of the "appropriate Government" under the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the stated purpose, "establishment of Diamond Park," was vague and indefinite and whether it could be explained away in Section 5-A notice? 2. Whether such alleged vagueness had caused any prejudice to petitioners disabling them from taking objections to the acquisition and whether objections filed by them were not considered? 3. Whether proposed acquisition was mala fide and in colourable exercise of power to confer any undue benefit on a private company M/s. B. Arun Kumar International and whether it was required to be undertaken in conformity with procedural requirements of Chapter VII of L. A. A. ? 4. Lastly, whether land under acquisition was unsuitable for the stated purpose and whether its acquisition could pose any threat to national security or violate any environmental guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The stated public purpose in Section 4 Notification was not required to be understood by the common man in the street but the person interested in land so that he could resist the acquisition by taking objections against it and seeking consideration of these u/s. 5-A of the Act. 2. Even if stated public purpose in Section 4 Notification was not all that clear and comprehensive, any explanation offered by the Government in its counter-affidavit and borne by its official record could be referred to and relied upon for understanding the true nature of the stated purpose. 3. The acquisition was not mala fide or in colourable exercise of power, and the land was suitable for the stated purpose. 4. The acquisition was within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Commissioner and Collector, who were duly authorized to exercise the power of the "appropriate Government" under the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed.
( 1 ) ONE LPA and these petitions involve similar questions of law and fact and are disposed off by this common judgment. Even though, writ petitioners are represented by more than one counsel, Shri M. M. Asudani took it upon himself to deputise for them all, to facilitate disposal of these petitions hanging fire since 1996 and going through bouts of litigations from here to the Apex Courts and back.
( 2 ) PETITIONERS are Bhumi Swamies of around 63 acres of land comprising survey Nos. 684/1, 684/1/3, 684/1/4, 684/1/5, 681/1/7, 684/1/8, 684/1/10, 684/2/1, 684/2/3, 684/2/4, 684/3/1, 684/3/2, 684/3/3, 684/3/4 and 684/3/5 in Patwari Halka No. 9, situate at Rangwasa, Tehsil-Indore, which is under acquisition for establishment of a "diamond Park" euphemism for Industrial area to accommodate diamond cutting and polishing units. They are engaged in a life and death struggle to ward off the acquisition and their attack to it is multipronged ranging from technicalities of law to national Security considerations.
( 3 ) IT all seems to have started in 1994 when State Government formulated its Industrial Policy providing special facilities/incentives to promote 100% export oriented and mineral based industrial units. A "diamond Park" was also conceived for housing diamond cutting and polishing units. One Private Company M/s. B. Arun Kumar International responded to this and requested for allotment of 150-200 acres of land near Indore for establishing of a diamond polishing and processing unit. The Government machinery consequently swung into action to seize upon this offer. A Committee of high ranking officials was constituted to identify and select the site for proposed "diamond Park". This Committee surveyed four sites and after weighing pros and cons found the land in Village Rangwasa suitable for it. About 118 hectares were earmarked for the purpose out of which 90 hectares or so belonged to the Government and remaining 73 hectares private land was proposed to be acquired. Accordingly, a proposal to acquire this private land was floated by Madhya Pradesh Adhyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (hereinafter called M. P. A. K. V. N.) which was approved by the Government in Commerce and Industry Department of the Government vide communication dated 18-1-1996. The Collector took the follow-up action, sought sanction of the Revenue Commissioner and issued notification dated 30-1-1996 read with Section 17 (1) of the Act for emergency acquisition of 73. 04 hectares of private land for specified public purpose of establishing a "diamond Park". This was followed by notification u/s. 6 issued by respondent No. 7 on 9-2-1996 declaring that land was required for public purpose and directing the Collector to takeover its possession within fifteen days.
( 4 ) PETITIONERS filed writ petitions against this, assailing the action on the ground that stated public purpose was vague and the whole exercise was mala fide, designed to benefit a private Company M/s. B Arun Kumar International. Writ Court rejected the contentions raised and dismissed the writ petitions vide judgment dated 12-4-1996. Petitioners took appeals against this which were also dismissed on 25-6-1996. They, thereafter, filed S. L. Ps. wherein Supreme Court ordered thus :-"mr. P. P. Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent theState of Madhya Pradesh states that the Notification dated 9th February, 1996 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be withdrawn within a period of two weeks from today. Thereupon within one week, notices under Section 5 (A) shall be issued to all the land owners concerned to file objections to the proposed acquisition. Such objections shall be filed by the land owners within two weeks of the date of receipt of the notices by them. The land owners shall be given the opportunity of hearing and the order of the objections shall be passed after complying with the requirement of Section 5 (A ). The procedure under the Act shall thereafter be followed
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
