1. Land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Notification for public purpose — Dispute over validity of acquisition for industrial plant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., K. SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
1. Smt. Somawanti and others (In Petn. No. 246 of 61). 2. Om Parkash and another (In Petn. No. 247 of 61) and 3. Atma Ram Chadha and another (In Petn. No. 248 of 61 , Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others (In all the Petitions) Respondents.
The State of Gujarat (In all the Petns.), Intervener.
Petitions Nos. 246 to 248 of 1961
Advocates appeared
Mr. G.S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (M/s Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P.L Vohra, Advocates of M/s Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Petitioners (In Petn. No.246 of 61); M/s. Rameshwar Nath S.N. Andley & P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., for Petitioners In Petns. Nos.247 & 248 of 61); Mr. S. M. Sikri. Advocate-General for the State of Punjab and Mr. N. S. Bindra, Senior Advocate, Mr. P.D Menon, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 1 (In All the Petns.); Mr. S. P. Varma, Advocate, for Respondent No.6 (In all the Petns.); Mr. H..N. Sanyal Addl. Solicitor-General of India (M/s. R. H. Dhebar and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), for Intervener (In all the Petns.)
Advocates:
G.S.PATHAK, H.N.SANYAL, N.S.BINDRA, P.D.MENON, P.L.VOHRA, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAJINDER NARAIN NATH, Rameshwar Nath, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.M.Sikri, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.Varma
G.S.PATHAK, H.N.SANYAL, N.S.BINDRA, P.D.MENON, P.L.VOHRA, R.H.Dhebar, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAJINDER NARAIN NATH, Rameshwar Nath, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.M.Sikri, S.N.ANDLEY, S.P.Varma
The government's declaration of public purpose under Section 6(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is conclusive evidence and non-justiciable unless the action is a colourable exercise of power. A token contribution by the State satisfies the "partly at public expense" requirement.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6(3), and 17 - Public Purpose - Conclusiveness of Government declaration - The declaration by the Government that land is needed for a public purpose is conclusive evidence under Section 6(3) and is not justiciable unless the action is a colourable exercise of power. (Paras 19, 23, 36, 40)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 6 - "Partly at public expense" - The expression "partly" does not necessarily mean a substantial part; a token contribution by the State towards compensation may satisfy the statutory requirement, provided the action is not a colourable exercise of power. (Para 52)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4 and 6 - Simultaneous publication of notifications - Where the Government directs that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply due to urgency, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 may be published on the same day. (Para 60)
(D) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) - Acquisition of land for a private venture that serves a public utility does not violate fundamental rights to property or trade, as the State has the discretion to determine and prioritize public purposes. (Paras 55, 58, 59)
Facts of the case:
Landowners acquired land for industrial purposes. The State subsequently acquired the land for the establishment of a factory for manufacturing refrigeration equipment by a private company. The State contributed a nominal sum towards the compensation. The landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging it was for a private purpose, lacked substantial public expense, and violated procedural requirements and fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The declaration under Section 6(3) is conclusive evidence of public purpose. A nominal contribution by the State satisfies the requirement of "partly at public expense." The establishment of a factory for public utilities is a public purpose. Simultaneous publication of notifications is permissible in emergencies.
Issues: Whether the government's declaration of public purpose is justiciable; whether a nominal contribution constitutes "partly at public expense"; and whether simultaneous publication of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 is legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 6(3) of the Act precludes judicial review of the "public purpose" determination unless fraud or colourable exercise of power is proven. The term "part" in "partly at public expense" does not mandate a substantial proportion of the cost. The State's determination of what constitutes a public purpose is final, provided it is relatable to a public benefit.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- land law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Validity of public purpose — Sufficiency of nominal government contribution — Compliance with Part VII for company acquisition — Simultaneous publication of notifications — Violation of Article 14. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 , 14 , 42 )
3. Section 6(3) declaration is conclusive evidence — Nominal contribution satisfies statutory requirement — Industrial development constitutes public purpose — Simultaneous notifications permissible in emergencies. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 23 , 27 , 28 , 36 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 60 )
4. Declaration under Section 6(3) of Land Acquisition Act is conclusive evidence of public purpose, challengeable only on grounds of colourable exercise of power. (Para 19 , 23 , 36 , 40 )
6. Is there a legal distinction between conclusive evidence and conclusive proof?
No. The court held that both expressions aim to give finality to the establishment of a fact. Once evidence is declared conclusive, it shuts out other evidence that would detract from it. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Can a court examine whether a government declaration of public purpose under Section 6 is valid?
Generally, the declaration is conclusive. However, it is justiciable if the action is a colourable exercise of power, meaning the purpose is purely private or non-existent, constituting a fraud on the power. (Para 36 , 40 )
8. Does a nominal financial contribution by the government satisfy the requirement that land be acquired partly at public expense?
Yes. The court held that part does not necessarily mean a substantial part. A token contribution is sufficient unless it indicates a colourable exercise of power. (Para 45 , 46 , 52 )
9. Can notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act be published simultaneously?
Yes, provided the government has directed that the provisions of Section 5A regarding objections shall not apply due to urgency under Section 17. (Para 60 )
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J: (B. P. Sinha, C.J.I. ,Kajagopala Ayyangar & Venkatarama Aiyar, JJ. concurring.) The petitioners who have acquired over six acres of land by purchase for Rs. 4,50,000 in February, 1961 under five sale deeds and one lease deed claim to have done so for the purpose of establishing a paper mill in collaboration with Messrs. R. S. Madhoram and Sons who had been granted a licence for the establishment of a paper plant in Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh. The aforesaid land is statute in the village Meola Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon and abuts on the Mathura Road, and is only about 10 or 12 miles from New Delhi. Respondent No. 6, Air Conditioning Corporation (P) Ltd., is a private limited concern and holds a licence from the Government of India for starting a factory for the manufacture of various ranges of refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipment. We may mention here that initially this project was allotted to the State of West Bengal but at the request of the State of Punjab its location was shifted to the State of Punjab.
2. The respondent No. 6 requested the State of Punjab for the allotment of an appropriate site for the location of the factory. The petitioners contend that the respondent No. 6 being interested in acquiring land in the village Meola Maharajpur approached the State of Punjab in or about the month of March, 1961 for the purpose of acquiring land for their factory under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (thereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the petitioners having learnt of this made an application on March 23,1961 to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon requesting him that none of the lands purchased by the petitioners should be acquired for the benefit of the respondent No. 6. Owners of adjacent lands Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Ram Raghubir, Mr. Atmaram Chaddha and Mr. Hari Kishen who are petitioners in W. P. 247 and 24S of 1961 which were heard along with this petition made similar requests. The petitioners allege that they were assured by the Deputy Commissioner that their lands would not be acquired for the benefit of respondent No.6. Thereafter the respondent No. 6 purchased by private treaty a plot of land measuring approximately 70,000 sq. yards contiguous to the land owned by the petitioners on or about April 21, 1961.
3.The petitioner s grievance is that notwithstanding the assurances given to them by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, the Governor of Punjab, by notification dated August 25, 1961, under S. 4 of the Act declared that the lands of the petitioners in this petition as well as those of the petitioners in the other two writ petitions were likely to be needed by Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for setting up a factory for manufacturing various ranges of refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipment. It accordingly notified that the land in the locality described in the notification was required for the aforesaid purpose. Similarly it authorised the Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Palwal to enter upon and survey the land in the locality and to do all other acts required or permitted by S. 4 of the Act. It further directed that action under S. 17 of the Act shall be taken because there was urgency and also directed that the provisions of S. 5A shall not apply to the acquisition. On August 19, the Governor of Punjab made a notification under S. 6 of the Act to the effect that he was satisfied that the land specified in the notification was required by Government at public expense for public purpose, namely, for setting up a factory for the manufacture of refrigeration compressors and other ancillary equipment and declared that the aforesaid land was required for the aforesaid purposes. This declaration was made "to all whom it may concern" and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Palwal was directed to take all steps for the acquisition of this land. Finally the notification provided for the immediate taking of possession
