1997 JTR(SC) 815
1997 AIR(SC) 2703 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2673 ; 1997 3 APLJ 44 ; 1997 3 CLT(SC) 32 ; 1997 2 CTC 177 ; 1997 3 CurCC(SC) 43 ; 1997 4 ICC 92 ; 1997 ILR(Kar) 2196 ; 1997 6 JT 22 ; 1997 2 KLT 217 ; 1997 2 MLJ 79 ; 1997 3 PLR(SC) 879 ; 1998 1 RCR(Civ) 651 ; 1997 4 Scale 295 ; 1997 5 SCC 432 ; 1997 Supp1 SCR 87 ; 1997 KHC 353 ; 1997 6 Supreme 54
1997(6) Supreme 54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
State of Kerala & Ors. -Appellants
versus
M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3628 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2604 of 1992)
Decided on 5-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : G. Prakash, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Varghese Kalliath, Sr. Advocate, Romy Chacko and M.K. Michael, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Roy Abraham, Advocate for Ms. Baby Krishnan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
If the acquired land can not be used for other public purpose then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched can be better utilised for public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution.
Act
Referred
:KERALA GOVERNMENT LAND ASSIGNMENT ACT : .
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.16, S.4
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 16, provides that when land is acquired for a public purpose and the acquisition is completed, the land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, further regulates the assignment of such land by the Government, requiring that any alienation or assignment must be for a public purpose and in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, supports the vesting of acquired land in the State. In this case, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the attempted assignment by the Government was evaluated against the restrictions imposed by the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
(B) It is settled law that after the public purpose for which land is acquired is achieved, any remaining land may be used for another public purpose or, if not required, must be disposed of by public auction to ensure public benefit. Private sale or assignment to erstwhile owners is invalid unless expressly authorized by law for a public purpose. The executive order permitting alienation of land must align with the statutory framework; otherwise, it is void.
Facts of the case:
In 1952, 1.94 acres of land were acquired for constructing a national highway, completed in 1955. Out of this, 80 cents were used, and the remaining land stayed unused. In 1979, the respondent applied to purchase the property at the compensation rate under Section 11, which was challenged via writ petitions. The Government relied on an executive order to justify the alienation, which the High Court found inconsistent with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that the executive order was invalid as it contravened the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. The assignment, if any, must serve a public purpose; otherwise, the land must be sold through public auction to benefit the public.
Issues:
Whether the Government can assign or sell land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to erstwhile owners after the public purpose is fulfilled, and whether an executive order permitting such alienation is valid when inconsistent with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi:
Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vests in the State free from encumbrances. Subsequent disposal must comply with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, and serve a public purpose; otherwise, disposal must occur via public auction. An executive order violating this principle is invalid.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 16, provides that when land is acquired for a public purpose and the acquisition is completed, the land stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, further regulates the assignment of such land by the Government, requiring that any alienation or assignment must be for a public purpose and in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, supports the vesting of acquired land in the State. In this case, the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the attempted assignment by the Government was evaluated against the restrictions imposed by the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
(B) It is settled law that after the public purpose for which land is acquired is achieved, any remaining land may be used for another public purpose or, if not required, must be disposed of by public auction to ensure public benefit. Private sale or assignment to erstwhile owners is invalid unless expressly authorized by law for a public purpose. The executive order permitting alienation of land must align with the statutory framework; otherwise, it is void.
Facts of the case:
In 1952, 1.94 acres of land were acquired for constructing a national highway, completed in 1955. Out of this, 80 cents were used, and the remaining land stayed unused. In 1979, the respondent applied to purchase the property at the compensation rate under Section 11, which was challenged via writ petitions. The Government relied on an executive order to justify the alienation, which the High Court found inconsistent with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that the executive order was invalid as it contravened the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960. The assignment, if any, must serve a public purpose; otherwise, the land must be sold through public auction to benefit the public.
Issues:
Whether the Government can assign or sell land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to erstwhile owners after the public purpose is fulfilled, and whether an executive order permitting such alienation is valid when inconsistent with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi:
Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vests in the State free from encumbrances. Subsequent disposal must comply with the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960, and serve a public purpose; otherwise, disposal must occur via public auction. An executive order violating this principle is invalid.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave arises form the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on July 24, 1991 in Writ Appeal No. 86 of 1990.
3. The admitted position is that an extent of 1.94 acres of land was acquired way back in 1952 for construction of national highway. The construction was completed in 1955. Out of the extent of 1.94 acres, 80 cents of land were used and the balance land remained unused. When respondent No. 1 had applied for sale of the property by proceedings dated December 21, 1979, the property was sought to be sold to him at the same rate at which compensation was awarded under Section 11; that was interdicted by way of writ petitions. The sheet-anchor of the Government to sustain the action is the executive order issued by the Government for permission for alienation of the land. The High Court has declared the executive action as invalid in the light of the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1960 (Act 30 to 1960) (for short, the Act ). The High Court has pointed out that the assignment is in contravention of Act. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. In view of a admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges; whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public actions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed accordingly.
*********