Back
1994 JLJ 96
Gulab C. Gupta and P.N.S. Chouhan, JJ.
Chaitram Verma and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Raipur and others
M.P. No. 461 of 1992; Decided on 20.5.1993.
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 6 (1) and 6 (3) -- declaration under S. 6 (1) that the land is required for public purpose -- conclusiveness of such declaration attached under S. 6 (3) – extent of-- Court can still examine whether the exercise of power is colourable and not bonafide. AIR 1963 SC 1890, AIR 1963SC 151,AIR 1967SC 1081 and AIR 1971 SC 1033 discussed and followed. [Para 8
(3) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.3 (f) -- expression "public purpose" -- acquisition of land for company may be for public purpose -- still such purpose does not fall under the expression being expressly excluded -- definition is both inclusive and exclusive. AIR 1966 SC 856 and AIR 1973 SC 1016 followed. AIR 1960 SC 1203 distinguished. [Para 11
(4) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- S.4 (amended) and S. 6 -- words‘ ‘for a company" as inserted in 1984 -- do not mean ‘‘for vesting ownership of the acquired land in the company" -- these words cover cases where acquisition is for the purpose of meeting any particular need of a company or for the benefit of a company. AIR 1958 All. 126 relied on. [Para 13
(5) Words and Phrases -- word ‘‘for‘‘ -- means "intended to", "belonging to", or "is used in connection with" or "suiting the purpose or need of". [Para 13
(6) Interpretation of Statutes -- otherwise clear and unambiguos language of a statute -- will not be interpreted restrictively only because its meaning does not suit a particular factual situation. [Para 13
(7) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 4 (1), 41 and Chap. VII -- same authority signing notification under S. 4 (1) and agreement under S. 41 -- such action is intended to bye-pass chapter VII and is a example of colourable exercise of power -- notification vitiated.
Could the authority getting the agreement u/s 41 of the Act reasonably notify that acquisition was intended to be for a public purpose and not for the company? The answer, in the opinion of this Court, is an emphatic No. It is difficult to believe that the Respondent No.1 did not know the law on the subject. Under the circumstances, the only legitimate inference is that the Respondent No.1 wanted to bye-pass the provisions of Chapter VII of the Act by making the notification for public purpose. It is, therefore, possible to allege lack of bonafide on the part of the respondent No.1 while issuing the notification. For the same reason, the notification u/s 4 of the Act must be held to have been issued in colourable exercise of power. The notification u/s 4 of the Act (Annexure-A) is thus, vitiated. [Para 14
(8) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 6 (1), 5A, 4, 17 and 39 -- acquisition not for‘ ‘public purpose" -- notification under S. 6 (1) illegal -- enquiry Wider S. 5 A cannot be dispensed with -- provisions of S. 17 (1) are not attracted -- S. 39 not complied with -- proceedings are vitiated. AIR 1965 SC 247, 1962 JLJ 1, AIR 1974 SC 2077, AIR 1975 SC 629, AIR 1959 All. 635, AIR 1966 All. 255 and AIR 1965 Mad. 50 relied on. [Para 15
(9) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 5A and 17 (1) -- even if S. 17 (1) is applicable it is not necessary that enquiry under S. 5A should always be dispensed with -- urgency should be real and not merely a cloak for denying benefits of the provision to the claimants. AIR 1980 SC 319 and AIR 1977 SC 183 followed. [Para 16
(10) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss.4, 5A and 17 (4) -- acquisition found illegal u no further reason for vitiating the proceedings is necessary. 1989 JLJ 501 relied on. [Para 17
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq-226 & Hkwfe ds vtZu ij vk{ksi & mPp U;k;ky; dks ;g fopkj djus dh ‘kfDr gS fd D;k og vtZu ‘kfDr ds feF;k ç;ksx dk ifj.kke vln~Hkkoiw.kZ gSA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 319 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8
¼2½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 6 ¼1½ rFkk 6 ¼3½ & /kkjk 6 ¼1½ ds v/khu ?kks"k.kk fd Hkwfe yksd ç;kstu ds fy, vko‘;d gS & ,slh ?kks"k.kk dh /kkjk 6¼3½ ds v/khu laca) fu‘pk;drk & O;kfIr & U;k;ky; rc Hkh fopkj dj ldrk gS fd D;k D;k ‘kfDr dk ç;ksx feF;k gS vFkok ln~Hkkfod ugha gSaA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1890] , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 151] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 1081 rFkk , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1033 foosfpr rFkk vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 8
¼3½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 3 ¼p½ && in ^^yksd ç;kstu** & daiuh ds fy, Hkwfe dk vtZu yksd ç;kstu ds fy, gks ldrk gS & rFkkfi] ,slk ç;kstu mDr in ds v/khu ugha vkrk gS D;ksafd vfHkO;Drr% mldk viotZu fd;k x;k gS & ifjHkk"kk O;kid vkSj viotZd nksuksa gSaA , vkb vkj 1966 ,l lh 856 rFkk , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 1016 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 1203 çHksfnrA ¿iSjk 11
¼4½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 4 ¼la‘kksf/kr½ rFkk 6&1984 esa ;Fkk var&LFkkfir ‘‘kCn ^^fdlh daiuh ds fy,** & ^^vftZr Hkwfe dk LokfeRo daiuh esa fufgr gksuk** vFkZ ugha gSa & bu ‘‘kCnksa ds varxZr os ekeys vkrs gSa ftuesa vtZu daiuh ds fdlh fof‘k"V vko‘;drk dh iwfrZ ds fy, vFkok fdlh daiuh ds Qk;ns ds fy, fd;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1958 bykgkckn 126 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 13
¼5½ ‘‘kCn vkSj okD; & ‘‘kCn ^^ds fy,** & vFkZ gS ^^dks vk‘kf;r**] ^dh laifÙk gksuk** vFkok ^^ds laca/k esa ç;qDr gksuk gS** ;k ^^ç;kstu vFkok vko‘;drk ds mi;qDr gksukA** ¿iSjk 13
¼6½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & fdlh dkuwu dh vU;Fkk Li"V vkSj vlafnX/kkFkZ Hkk"kk & fuc±f/kr :i ls dsoy bl dkj.k fuoZpu ugha fd;k tk,xk fd mldk vFkZ fdlh fof‘k"V rF;kRed fLFkfr ls esy ugha [kkrkA ¿iSjk 13
¼7½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 4¼1½] 41 rFkk v/;k; 7 & ,d gh çkkf/kdkjh }kjk /kkjk 4¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk vkSj /kkjk 41 ds v/khu djkj ij gLrk{kj & ,slh dkjZokbZ v/;k; 7 ls drjk dj fudyuk gS rFkk ‘kfDr ds feF;k ç;ksx dk mnkgj.k gS & vf/klwpuk nwf"kr gSA
D;k /kkjk 41 ds v/khu djkj çkIr djus okyh çkf/kdkjh ;qfDr;qDr :Ik ls vf/klwfpr dj ldrk Fkk fd vtZu yksd ç;kstu ds fy, vk‘kf;r Fkk] daiuh ds fy, ugha Fkk\ bldk mÙkj bl U;k;ky; dh jk; esa tksjnkj ^ugha* gSA ;g fo‘okl djuk dfBu gS fd çR;FkhZ Ø-1 dks bl fo"k; dh fof/k dk Kku ugha FkkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fof/k lEer fu"d"kZ dsoy ;g gS fd çR;FkhZ Ø-1 yksd ç;kstu ds fy, vf/klwpuk dj ds v/;k; 7 ds mica/kksa ls drjk dj fudyuk pkgrk FkkA vr%] vf/klwpuk tkjh djus esa çR;FkhZ Ø-1 dh vksj ls ln~Hkko dh deh dk vfHkdFku laHko gSA blh dkj.k] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu vf/klwpuk ‘kfDr ds feF;k ç;ksx esa tkjh fd;k tkuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gh tkuk gksxkA bl çdkj] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds v/khu tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk nwf"kr gSA ¿iSjk 14
¼8½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 6¼1½] 5d] 4] 17 rFkk 39 & vtZu ^^yksd ç;kstu** ds fy, ugha & /kkjk 6¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk voS/k & /kkjk 5d ds v/khu tk¡p NksM+h ugha tk ldrh & /kkjk 17 ¼1½ ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs & /kkjk 39 dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k & dk;Zokgh nwf"kr gSA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 247] 1962 ts ,y ts 1] , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 2077] , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 629] , vkb vkj 1959 bykgkckn 635] , vkb vkj 1966 bykgkckn 225 rFkk , vkb vkj 1965 enzkl 50 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 15
¼9½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 5d rFkk 17¼1½ & /kkjk 17¼1½ ykxw gksus ij Hkh vko‘;d ugha gSa fd /kkjk 5d ds v/khu tk¡p NksM+ nh tk, & vR;ko‘;d okLrfod gksuk pkfg,] nkosnkjksa dks mica/k Qk;ns ls oafpr djus ds fy, ek= cgkuk ughaA , vkb vkj 1980 ,l lh 319 rFkk , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 183 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16
¼10½ Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894 & /kkjk 4] 5d rFkk 17¼4½ vtZu voS/k ik;k x;k &dkZokgh nwf"kr gksus ds fy, vfrfjDr dkj.k vko‘;d ughaA 1989 ts ,y ts 501 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 17
Gulab C. Gupta, J.--1. The petitioners are bhumiswamis of lands notified u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 4.7.91 to be acquired for "public purpose" and challenge legal validity thereof by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The lands in question have also been declared u/s 6 of the Act as acquired and awards in respect thereof passed by the respondent No.1. The declaration dated 24.2.92 (Annexure-R-IV) u/s 6 of the Act and awards dated 27.5.1992 are also challenged as illegal in this petition.
2. It appears that pursuant to the industrial policy of the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh, industrialists from all over the country were offered concessions, facilities and benefits and invited to establish industries in the State. The respondent No.4, pursuant to this invitation gave their consent to the Industries Department of the State and Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam to establish a cement factory at Bhatapara sub division, Raipur and were granted permission by the respondent-State. The cement plant was to be commissioned in October, 1992 (Para 3 of the Return of the respondent No.4). According to the affidavit dated 5.5.1993 of Shri Raj Singh, Resident Manager of respondent No.4, they approached the Railway Board in May-June, 1986 for No Objection Certificate for providing a railway siding for the cement plant and the said Board granted the said certificate on 6.6.1986. Thereafter, the S.E. Railways was requested to undertake survey for the said siding and submit its report. The S.E. Railways undertook the survey and submitted its report to the Respondent No. 4 on 25.11.86. The respondent No.4 communicated their acceptance to the S.E. Railways on 20.4.1987 and paid survey fee of Rs. 13,82,850/- to them by 11.11.1989 in four instalments. Thereafter, on 7.12.1989 the respondent No.4 applied to the Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam for making available the land for construction of railway siding. The Nigam forwarded this application to the General Manager, District Industries Centre who in turn passed it on to the Additional Director of Industries. The Additional Director recommended the matter to the respondent-State Government on 2.4.1990. The State Government accorded its sanction on 15.6.1990 and required the respondent-Collector to undertake proceedings for the acquisition of lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
3. There is nothing on record to show what happened between 15.6.90 i.e. date of sanction and 20.6.91 when the Respondent No.1 obtained information about the lands to be acquired from Patwaris of the village. Order sheets (Annexure-D, E and F), indicate that the respondent Land Acquisition Officer applied to the Commissioner, Raipur Division on 25.6.91 for permission to proceed u/s 17 (1) of the Act. Order-sheets do not show that any request to dispense with enquiry u/s 5-A as required u/s 17 (4) of the Act was made by the Respondent No.1. The Commissioner seems to have approved application of section 17 (1) of the Act on 29.6.1991 and thereafter on 4.7.1991 draft notifications u/s 4 (1) and 6 of the Act were prepared by the respondent No.1 and sent for publication in official Gazettee. The two notifications were published in M.P. Rajpatra dated 19.7.91 as per Annexure-A and Band mention acquisition "for construction of railway siding of cement plant of Tata Iron & Steel Co.". Actual words are in Hindi and are as under:--
^^VkVk vk;ju ,aM LVhy daiuh ds flesUV la;a= ds jsYos lkbZfMax gsrqA
Order-sheet of one of the cases indicates that Respondent No.1 on 3.7.91 required the Respondent No.4 to sign agreement u/s 41 of the Act, and hence 3 agreements in relation to lands in 3 villages were signed on 4.7.91. Order-sheets dated 22.7.91 show that the respondent No.1 ordered on that date that two notifications, declarations be also published in two local newspapers. The respondent No.1 also ordered publication u/s 9 (1), (2) and
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
