LexBABU BARKYA THAKUR versus STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Sardar San1sher Singh v. Ua;a Sar,lar l\'arain ~Others August 8. 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196 I] one on account of costs, that is, for 11. total sum of lls. 2,04,366-5-9 with proportionate costs with interest pendente lite and future interest a.t the rate of 4 per cent. per annum simple from tho date of the applica- tion, i.e., October 26, 1936, till realisation. ' Accordingly, we allow tho appeal, set aside the decree passed by the courts below and order t bat in place of the decree made by the Trial Court be sub- stituted a money decree in the terms as mentioned above. Tho appellant will get his costs in the appeal. Appeal all-Owed. BABU BARKYA THAKUR v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS. (B. p_ SINHA, c. J., JA}'ER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Land Acquisilion--Preliminary notification-Land needed for company-Non ·tnrnlion of public p11rpose-Lega!ity-Procudings, if violate f11ndamrntal rights-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), ss. 4, 5A, 6, 40-Co1>stitution of India, Arts. 19(r)(j), 3r. By a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State of Bombay (now }!aharashtra) sought to acquire certain lands, including those o( the petitioner, which were like- ly to be needed by a company, manufacturing steel bars and rods, for its factory and buildings and appointed a Special Land Acquisition Officer to !unction as a Collector under s .. 5A of the Act. The petitioner by an objection filed before the said officer denied that the lands were required for a public purpose and prayed that the proceedings be quashed. By his petition to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challeng- ed the legality of the notification under s. 4 of the Act on the ground that it did not in tern1s say that the acquisition \\'as for a public purpose, and that the acquisition proceedings infringed Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. Held, that it is not essential that a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should expressly state that I ( . -- 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORT~ 129 the land sought to be acquired is needed for a public purpose. I96-0 Where the land is required for a· company, the requirement of the law will be sufficiently met if the appropriate Government Babu Barkya 1• is satisfied on a report under s. 5A(2) . or by an enquiry under Thakur. s. 40 of the Act. that the purpose of the acquisition is the same v. as contemplated by s. 40 cif the Act. . The State of .It is apparent from the definitions of the expressions 'com- _Bombay & Others pany ' and ' public purpose ' contained in s. 3 of the Act that the former is·used in a very comprehensive sense and the latter is used in its gen.eric sense including any purpose which may bene- fit even a fraction of the commnnity and such purposes as are mentioned in .s. 40 of the Act must fall within its ambit. State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, [1955] r .S.C.R. 777, referr- ed to. · A notification under s. 4 of the Act envisages a 'preliminary investigation and it is only under s. 6 that the Government makes a firm declaration. It is not, therefore, correct to say ·that a defect in the notification can be fatal to the·acquisition proceedings and particularly where 'the acquisition is.for _a com- pany and investigation has to be made under s. 5A or s; 40 after the issue of the notification. In this view of the matter the present application must be premature. . Clause (6) of the Art. 31 'has obviously no application to the Land·Acquisiti'on Act, 1894, and so it is saved by Art. 31(5)(a) of the Consiitut~on even if it contemplates acquisition for a com- pany which may or may not be for a public purpose. Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay, [1957] S.C.R. 721, referr- ed to. The attack under Art. l9(1)(f) of the Constitution must also fail in view of the decision of this Court in State "of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, [1955] r S.C.R. 777. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 134 of 1959. Petition under Art. 32 ofthe ConsLitution of India. for enforcement of fundamental rights. . , · 'J, C. Bhatt, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrish- _nan, for the petitioner. N. S. Binrl.ra, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for res- pondents Nos. 1- and 2. S. K. Kapur, P. M. Mukhi a,nd B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No. 3. 1960. August 8.. The Judgment of the Court wa.s delivered by 17 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1961] z96o SINHA C. J.-T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.