Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 1007
S.K. Dubey
Jaisingh Rajput And Ors.
vs
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
Decided on : 30 November, 1995
The acquisition of land for a public purpose is not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is mala fide or a colourable exercise of powers.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - URGENCY CLAUSE - PUBLIC PURPOSE - HOUSING SCHEME - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR WEAKER SECTION - DISPENSING WITH ENQUIRY - VALIDITY - ULC ACT - OVERRIDING EFFECT - SALE DEEDS - EXECUTION AFTER NOTIFICATION - LOCUS STANDI - DELAY - COMPARATIVE UTILITY OF PUBLIC PURPOSE - RELEASE OF LAND - ADJUSTMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
Housing Cooperative Societies challenged the acquisition of land for a housing scheme under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that the acquisition was arbitrary and illegal as the urgency clause was invoked without proper application of mind and that the land was intended to be purchased by the societies for providing housing to their members, who belonged to the weaker section of society.
Finding of the Court:
1. The acquisition of land for the housing scheme was for a public purpose, as defined under Section 3(f) of the Act, and the satisfaction of the State Government regarding the existence of the public purpose is not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is mala fide or a colourable exercise of powers. 2. The exercise of power under Section 17(1) of the Act, invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, was not arbitrary or illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Commissioner had applied his mind and found that there was urgency for public purpose. 3. The object and purpose of the Land Acquisition Act and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) are different, and the ULC Act does not have overriding effect in relation to land that is not surplus land under the ULC Act. 4. The petitioners, being housing societies, did not have locus standi to challenge the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as they did not have any right, title, or interest in the land at the time of the notifications. 5. The petitions were also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as they were filed after a period of two and a half years from the issuance of the notifications.
Issues: 1. Whether the acquisition of land for the housing scheme was for a public purpose and whether the invocation of the urgency clause was arbitrary or illegal. 2. Whether the ULC Act has overriding effect in relation to land that is not surplus land under the ULC Act. 3. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act. 4. Whether the petitions were barred by delay.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The acquisition of land for the housing scheme was for a public purpose, as defined under Section 3(f) of the Act, and the satisfaction of the State Government regarding the existence of the public purpose is not open to judicial scrutiny unless it is mala fide or a colourable exercise of powers. 2. The exercise of power under Section 17(1) of the Act, invoking the urgency clause and dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act, was not arbitrary or illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Commissioner had applied his mind and found that there was urgency for public purpose. 3. The object and purpose of the Land Acquisition Act and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) are different, and the ULC Act does not have overriding effect in relation to land that is not surplus land under the ULC Act. 4. The petitioners, being housing societies, did not have locus standi to challenge the notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as they did not have any right, title, or interest in the land at the time of the notifications. 5. The petitions were also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay, as they were filed after a period of two and a half years from the issuance of the notifications.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs. The court directed that if the societies applied for allotment of land or plots to their members, the Board shall give preference to them. The court also directed that the amount of compensation be adjusted in the price of the plots, and if not adjusted, it be disbursed to the land owners or their transferee Societies in accordance with law.
S.K. Dubey, J.
1. In 7 Writ Petitions No. 3649192; No. 3650/92; No. 3651/92; No. 3652/92; No. 3653/92; No. 3654/92 and No. 3667 of 1991, the petitioners are the Housing Co-operative Societies registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 while in M. P. No. 3290/93, petitioners Nos. 1 to 19 alleged themselves to be holders of the land in part of Khasra No. 274 of village Narela Shankari, tahsil Huzur, district Bhopal, of which the Bhumiswami is petitioner No. 20 Devilal son of Balli Gahlot of the said petition. The petitioners by their separate petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the acquisition of land and its proceedings pursuant to the notification dated 20th January, 1989 issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra (Annexure T) of M. P. No. 3649/92 from which all other documents hereinafter shall also be referred. By the said notification the land measuring 55.719 Hectares was proposed to be acquired for the M. P. Housing Board (for short 'Board') respondent No. 3 for public purpose that is, for constructing housing accommodation for the members of the weaker section of the society and for the members of the lower income group. The notification has been challenged on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirement of the provisions of Sections 4 and 17 of the Act, hence the entire acquisition proceedings in pursuance of the said notification and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) Bhopal be quashed.
2. The petitioners' case is that low-paid employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and other Corporations and of the State Government formed the Housing Cooperative Societies with an object of providing small plots for construction of the houses to the members of the respective societies. To achieve the said object, the petitioner societies intended to purchase the land from the holders of the-land who had excess and surplus land - over the limit as fixed under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'U.L.C. Act') and for that applications were made by the respective societies, under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act for grant of exemption and to some of them exemption was granted and in respect of some the proceedings for grant of exemption are pending. The Societies were also granted licence under the relevant provisions of M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrasta Aacharan Nivaran. Adhiniyam, 1982 {for short 'Adhiniyam') for establishing the housing colonies for the members of the societies. Much prior to the issuance of the notification, the petitioner societies entered into agreements of sale of the respective areas of the land to be purchased from the Bhumiswami, that is, holder of the land and thereafter initiated the proceedings for grant of exemption under Section 20 of the U.L.C. Act.
3. The Board applied for acquisition of the land for implementation of housing scheme under new housing policy 1988 in the name of Ayodhya' for providing housing accommodation to the members of the weaker section of the society and to members of the lower income groups, making a prayer that the land is immediately needed for the public purpose, the power under Section 17(1) of the Act be exercised for taking of the possession which be handed over to the Board. The Commissioner, Bhopal Division, after satisfaction and forming an opinion that the private land is required for the public purpose, granted permission for exercise of the power under Section 17(1) of the Act, vide letter dated 6th December, 1988. Thereafter, the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(1) of the Act was issued dispensing with the enquiry and hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act. Thereafter a notification dated 6-5-1989 under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 26-5-1989.
4. Shri V. S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioners cont
