COLLECTOR OF AKOLA & ORS. versus RAMCHANDRA & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 30-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
RAMCBANDRA & ORS. 
Augu.it 30, 1967 
[J.C. SHAH, s. M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
BomQay Land Requisition Act (Bom. 23 of 1948), s. 5(1)-Requi-
sition for permanent public purpMe-If can be made. 
Land Acquisition· Act (1 of 1894)-Power to requisition and ac-
·quis_ition-lf action under one bar action undeT other. 
The land owned by the respondents were requisitioned by the 
first appellant undet the Bombay Land Requisition Act for a public 
purpose viz., for establishing a new villa~e site to resettle victims 
of flood. The respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the vtlidity of the order on the ground that since the 
Act was a temporary Act extended until then upto 1963, the power 
to requisition thereunder would inhere to the Government only 
during the time that it subsisted; so an order passed for a permanent 
purpose could not be in the contemplation of the Act. The High 
Court accepted the objection and quashed the order. 
In a appeal to this Court : 
Held: The power to requisition under the Act could be exercis-
ed whether the public purpose was temporary or not and tbe ex-
ercise of that power for the purpose of rehabilitation of flood sufferers 
was neither in abuse of nor unjustified under the Act. The words 
"for any public purpose" in s. 5(1) are wide enough to include any 
purpose of whatsoever nature and do not con.tain any restriction 
regarding the nature of that purpose. It places no limitation on the 
competent authority as to what kind of public purpose it should be 
for the valid exercise of its power nor does it confine the exercise 
of that power to a purpose which is a temporary one. [404E-F; 405A-
BJ 
There is no antithesis between the power to requisition and the 
power of cm;np11lsory acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. 
Ni:ither of the two Acts contains any provision under which it can 
be said that if one is acted upon, the other cannot. [ 405D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 
196.4. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
All;[!ust 28, 1962 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in 
Special Civil Application No. 373 of 1961. 
R. M. Hazarnavis, K. L. Hathi and S. P. Nayar, for the ap-
pellants. 
S. G. Patwardhan, and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respon-
dent Nos. 1-10 and 12. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S~elat, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
t,he order of the High Court. of Maharashtra quashing the order 
d.ated November 20, 1961 passed by the first appellant under sec-
tion 5(1) of the Bombliy Lan<,! Requisition Act 23 of 1948 as 
401 
SUPllllKB COURT BBl'OllTS 
(1968) 1 S.0.11. 
~xtended to. the Vidarbha! area by the Bombay Land Requisi-
A 
tlon <Extenston and Amendment) Act 33 of 1959. 
The respondents are the owners of the land in question 
situate in the village Kasarkhed, District Akola. It appears that in 
1959 there were floods in the area which affected the residen18 
living in the gaothan of Kasarkhed. Once again there were floods 
in 1961 more serious than in 1959 affecting as many as 470 per· 
B 
sons whose houses were either washed away or seriously damag-
ed. There was therefore an urgent necessity of rehabilitating those 
sufferers at some Dither place where they could build their houses 
and complete them before the arrival of the next monsoon. In 
these circumstances the first appellant under powers conferred on 
him by section 15 of the Act passed the impugned order. The order 
stated that the lands set out in the Schedule therrt" were needed 
C 
or were likely to be needed for the public purpose, viz .• for a new 
gaothan at Kasarkhed for the victims of floods, the old village site 
where they lived having been rendered unsuitable by floods and 
that it was therefore necessary to requisition the said lands for the 
said purpose. It is not in dispute that land was needed for settling 
a new gaothan where the victims of the flood could be resettled. 
At a later stage the State Government also initiated proceedings 
D 
under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 in respect of those very 
lands and issued a notification under section 4 thereof. On Decem-
ber, 14, 1961 the respondents filed a Special Civil Application in 
the High Court challenging the validity of the said order on the 
grounds inter a/ia that it was passed without giving them an op-
portunity of being heard, that it contravened Art. t9(1)(f) and (g) 
of the Constitution

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