1996 JTR(SC) 1586
1997 AIR(SC) 334 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 92 ; 1997 1 BomLR 220 ; 1996 10 JT 32 ; 1996 8 Scale 15 ; 1997 3 SCC 493 ; 1996 SCR 161 ; 1997 KHC 787 ; 1996 8 Supreme 95
1996(8) Supreme 95
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Laxmanrao Bapurao Jadhav & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4165 of 1988
Decided on 1-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Gopal Balwant Sathe, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 and 2 : S.M. Jadhav, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 : D.M. Nargolkar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Mere fact that the authorised officer was empowered to inspect and find out whether the land would be adaptable for the public purpose does not take away the power of the Government to take a decision ultimately.
Act
Referred
:BOMBAY AMENDMENT ACT : S.3(a)
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.3(a), S.5(a), S.6, S.4, S.4(2), S.7
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Bombay Amendment Act, governs the acquisition of land for public purpose. Section 4(1) authorises publication of notification acquiring land, here for constructing houses for weaker sections. Section 5A and Section 6 establish the procedure for enquiry, declaration of public purpose, and conclusiveness of such declaration. The Bombay Amendment Act, specifically Section 3A, authorises officers to conduct preliminary surveys and assess suitability of land before and after notification, while Section 7 authorises officers to serve notices. The High Court had questioned the validity of the declaration on the ground that the authorised officers satisfaction was required under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act, rendering the Governments conclusion under Section 6 unsustainable. This headnote explains why that interpretation is legally incorrect.
(B) The power to determine public purpose ultimately vests in the State Government, and the declaration under Section 6 is conclusive. Preliminary surveys under Section 3A and Section 4(2) are enabling powers for assessment, not determinative of the public purpose. The validity of acquisition does not depend on satisfaction of the authorised officer, but on the Governments decision after enquiry.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) was published on June 19, 1982, acquiring specified land for housing weaker sections. A declaration under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1983, following an enquiry. The respondent challenged the notification and declaration in the High Court, relying on the requirement of officer satisfaction under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act. The High Court allowed the contention and struck down the declaration.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts view was incorrect. Section 3-A and Section 4(2) are enabling provisions for survey and assessment. The power to decide whether land is needed for a public purpose rests with the State Government, and its declaration under Section 6 is conclusive. The officers role is preliminary and does not detract from the Governments ultimate decision-making authority.
Issues:
Whether the requirement of satisfaction under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act strips the Government of power to conclude that land is needed for a public purpose under Section 6.
Ratio Decidendi:
Sections 3A and 4(2) authorise preliminary surveys and assessment of suitability, but the conclusive decision on public purpose is made by the State Government under Section 6. The enabling powers of officers do not override the Governments determinative power, and the declaration under Section 6 is binding.
Result:
Appeal allowed. The High Court order setting aside the declaration is set aside. No costs.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Bombay Amendment Act, governs the acquisition of land for public purpose. Section 4(1) authorises publication of notification acquiring land, here for constructing houses for weaker sections. Section 5A and Section 6 establish the procedure for enquiry, declaration of public purpose, and conclusiveness of such declaration. The Bombay Amendment Act, specifically Section 3A, authorises officers to conduct preliminary surveys and assess suitability of land before and after notification, while Section 7 authorises officers to serve notices. The High Court had questioned the validity of the declaration on the ground that the authorised officers satisfaction was required under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act, rendering the Governments conclusion under Section 6 unsustainable. This headnote explains why that interpretation is legally incorrect.
(B) The power to determine public purpose ultimately vests in the State Government, and the declaration under Section 6 is conclusive. Preliminary surveys under Section 3A and Section 4(2) are enabling powers for assessment, not determinative of the public purpose. The validity of acquisition does not depend on satisfaction of the authorised officer, but on the Governments decision after enquiry.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) was published on June 19, 1982, acquiring specified land for housing weaker sections. A declaration under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1983, following an enquiry. The respondent challenged the notification and declaration in the High Court, relying on the requirement of officer satisfaction under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act. The High Court allowed the contention and struck down the declaration.
Findings of Court:
The High Courts view was incorrect. Section 3-A and Section 4(2) are enabling provisions for survey and assessment. The power to decide whether land is needed for a public purpose rests with the State Government, and its declaration under Section 6 is conclusive. The officers role is preliminary and does not detract from the Governments ultimate decision-making authority.
Issues:
Whether the requirement of satisfaction under Section 3A of the Bombay Amendment Act strips the Government of power to conclude that land is needed for a public purpose under Section 6.
Ratio Decidendi:
Sections 3A and 4(2) authorise preliminary surveys and assessment of suitability, but the conclusive decision on public purpose is made by the State Government under Section 6. The enabling powers of officers do not override the Governments determinative power, and the declaration under Section 6 is binding.
Result:
Appeal allowed. The High Court order setting aside the declaration is set aside. No costs.
ORDER
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on June 19, 1982 acquiring lands in Survey No. 27/C.1/A/1 admeasuring 1 hectare, 19 acres and 8 tees for construction of houses for weaker sections of the society. Notification under Section 5A was issued. The enquiry was conducted and on satisfaction that it was needed for public purpose, declaration under Section 6 was published on January 7, 1983. After the Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the respondent No. 3 filed writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the notification and the declaration. The contention raised and accepted by the High Court was that since Section 3A of the Bombay (Amendment) Act, 1945 (22 of 1945) empowers the officer authorised by the Commissioner to satisfy himself whether the land is needed for a public purpose and since the authorised officer had not satisfied in that behalf, the Government s power, after the enquiry under Section 5-A, was denuded. The Government, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that the land was needed for a public purpose. We find that the view taken by the High Court is not correct in law.
2. On publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, sub-section (2) envisages that the Land Acquisition Officer of an officer authorised specially in this behalf by the Government or any servant or workman shall have lawful authority to enter upon and survey and conduct levels of any land in such locality etc. Section 3-A envisages the powers of the officers to carry out survey as under :
"3-A. Preliminary survey of lands and powers of officers to carry out survey.-For the purpose of enabling the State Government or the Commissioner to determine whether the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, it shall be lawful for any officers of the State Government in the Publics Works Department, or any other officer either generally or specially authorised by the State Government in this behalf, or as the case may be, any officer authorised by the Commissioner and for his servants and workmen,-
(i) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality;
(ii) to marks such levels;
(iii) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose; and
(iv) where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the levels taken, to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle;
Provided that no person shall enter into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof), without previously giving such occupier at least seven days notice in writing of his intention to do so."
3. This is synonymous to the power under Section 4(2) of the Act. In addition to the officer authorised under Section 7 of the Act, any other officer named in Section 3-A is also empowered even before the notification under Section 4(1) is published to inspect the locality and find out whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for any purpose and on such authorisation it shall be lawful for the officer appointed by the State Government in the Public Works Department or any other officer generally of specially authorised in this behalf, as the case may be, or any officer authorised by the Gvernment or a public servant or a workman, to enter upon and survey the land, take levels of any land in such locality, mark levels and to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose and, where otherwise the survey cannot be completed and levels taken to cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle etc.
4. Section 3-B gives power for awarding damages for doing such acts. This will be only an enabling provision to authorise the officer to do the acts envisaged under Section 3-A of the State Amendment Act in addition to the power under sub-section (2) of Section 4. Ultimately, it is for the State Government to decide whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose and whether it is suitable or adaptable for the purpose for which the acquisition was sought to be made. The mere fact that the authorised officer was empowered to inspect and find out whether the land would be adaptable for the public purpose, it is needed or is likely to be needed, does not take away the power of the Government to take a decision ultimately.
5. Section 6 of the Act gives a conclusiveness to the public purpose found by the Government on publication of the declaration in the Gazette. In other words, it is the State Government that is required to decide whether the land is needed or is likely to be needed for the public purpose. The view of the High Court, therefore, is clearly incorrect.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1417/84 dated February 25, 1987 stands set aside. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
*******