BAJIRAO T. KOTE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 08-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BAJIRAO T. KOTE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARlPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
. 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1) Notification published in 
Gazette for acquiring certain lands and house for public trust Saibaba 
Sansthan Shirdi-Public purpose-Whether vague Held: No. Failure to 
purchase the land by negotiation and subsequent exercise of power under 
S.4(1) Held: No mala fide or colourable exercise of power-No infirmity or C 
illegality in the notification published 'Public purpose '-Existence of-
Primiarily Government has to decide-Courts not to evaluate evidence and 
come to conclusion unless there is mala fide or colourable exercise of 
power. 
The Respondent Government published a Gazette notification D 
under S.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on October 11, 1972 
acquiring the land including House No. 594/B admeasuring about 25' 
X25' for public trust "Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi", the validity of which 
was challenged by the appellants by way of a Writ petition. The High 
Court rejected the petitions. Hence this appeal. 
E 
Appellants contended that the specification of "public purpose" in 
the notification was vague and the acquisition was not for a public 
purpose; that the right of objection statutorily given to the owner of the 
land under S.5-A of the Land Acquisition Act should not be made 
illusory by vague statement of public purpose and that it was in fact a F 
colourable exercise of the power and vitiated on the ground of 
vagueness. The appellants also contended that the acquisition would 
result in denying their livelihood, offending their right to life, and that 
no useful purpose would be served by acquiring such a small piece of 
land for a large project. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. It is seen that the public trust Saibaba Sansthan-
Shirdi, needs the land for the public purpose, namely two temples are 
needed to be connected by a road through the land occupied by the 
house sought to be acquired. It is true that Saibaba Temple at Shirdi is H 
413 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
run by a public trust maintaining Saibaba Temple at Shirdi and other 
temples and Dharamshala prayer Hall. Thousands of pilgri01s daily 
visit Saibaba Temple at Shirdi to pay their homage and seek blessings 
of the mystic secular saint Sri Saibaba. Each religion claims that he 
belongs to their faith but the great saint never proclaimed himself to be 
of a particular faith. Therefore, all sections of the people in India have 
great unflinching faith, devotion and absolute belief in him and every 
day thousands of pilgrims throng Shridi to pay their homage and seek 
his blessings. [420 D, E] 
1.2. It cannot be gainsaid that providing access to the temples is not 
a public purpose. The exercise of the power under Section 4(1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, therefore, is neither colourable nor mala fide. 
When the State Govt. exercised the pow~r under section 4(1) for a 
public purpose and the public purpose was mentioned therein, the 
exercise of the power cannot be invalidated on grounds of mala fides or 
colourable exercise of power so long as the public purpose is shown and 
the land is needed or is likely to be needed and the purpose subsists at 
the time of exercise of the power. It is primarily for the State 
Government to decide whether there exists public purpose or not, and 
it is not for this Court or the High Courts to evaluate the evidence and 
come to its own conclusion whether or not there is public purpose 
unless it comes to the conclusion that it is a mala fide or colourable 
exercise of the power. In the instant case, even before the enquiry u/s.5-
A was conducted and a report submitted, the apellants had approached 
the High Court for quashing the notification published u/s. 4(1) of the 
Act. [421 F to H, 422 A, 420 CJ 
1.3. It is true that an attempt was made on an earlier occasion to 
purchase the property by negotiation but it was turned down by the 
Charity Commissioner and 
he 
refused to grant permission. 
Consequently, the trust was constrained to approach the government 
requesting it to acquire the land. The government did consider the 
·circumstances and exercised that power. The Act does give the power 
to negotiate by private sale or even during pending acquisition 
proceedings, negotiations by private sale could be made in which event 
the need to determine t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.