DAULAT SINGH SURANA AND ORS. versus FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1076 · Decided: 13-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DAULAT SINGH SURANA AND ORS. 
v. 
FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
B 
NOVEMBER 13, 2006 
[ASHOK BHAN AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition: 
C 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4 and 6. 
"Public purpose "-Acquisition of premises-State Government issued 
a notification under S. 4 and declaration under S. 6 for acquisition of 
premises for the office-cum-residence for the Deputy Commissioner of Police 
D (security Control)-The State Government was already using the premises in 
question for more than six decades-In the declaration it was clearly 
incorporated that the premises in question was required at the public 
expense-The said premises and the land appurtenant thereto had been 
continuously in possession of the state Government Since 1943 as the office 
of the Dy. Commissioner of police (security Control)-A Single Judge allowed 
E the writ petition filled by the owner of the premises in question-It was 
alleged that the publication of the Notification under S. 4 without first 
delivering hack possession of the land to the owner as per court's order 
amounted to practicing fraud by the Government upon the statute-The 
Division Bench held that for the purpose of examining the validity of a 
Notification under S. 4, the question of possession of land is absolutley 
F irrelevant-The High Court further held that the examination should remain 
confined only to the question of existence of public purpose-Correctness 
of-Held: "public purpose" will include a purpose in which the general 
interest of the community as opposed to the interest of an individual is 
directly or indirectly involved-Individual interest must give way to public 
G interest as far as "public purpose" in respect of acquisition of land is 
concerned-The Government has the sole and absolute discretion to decide 
what "pub/ ic purpose" is-The power of compulsory acquisition can be 
exercised only in the interest and/or the welfare of the people-The premises 
in question was required for the interest and welfare of the people and, 
H 
1076 
.... 
.. 
OAULAT SINGH SURANA v. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 
1077 
therefore, "public purpose" was involved in acquiring the premises in A 
question-High Court's judgment upheld 
Words & Phrases: 
"Public purpose"-Meaning of-In the context of Sections 4 and 6 of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. 
B 
Doctrine of "Eminent domain "-Explained. 
The respondent-State issued a notification under section 4 and 
declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition 
of premises for the office-cum-residence for the Deputy Commissioner of C 
Police (Security Control). The State Government was already using the 
premises in question for more than six decades. In the declaration issued under 
Section 6 of the Act, it was clearly incorporated that the said pieces of land 
was needed for the officer-cum-residence of the Dy. Commissioner of Police 
(Security Con~rol) at the public expense. In the year 1943, the premises in 
question was requisitioned by the State Government and the said premises D 
and the land appurtenant thereto had been continuously in possession of the 
respondent-State Government since 1943 as the officer of the Dy. 
Commissioner of Police (Security Control). 
The appellant filed a wit petition challenging the said notification, which E 
was allowed by single Judge of the High Court The appellant alleged that the 
publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act without first 
delivering back possession of the land to the owner as per court's order 
amounted to practicing fraud by the Government upon the statue. In appeal, 
the Division Bench of the High Court held that for the purpose of examining 
the validity of a Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the question of F 
possession of land is absolutely irrelevant The High Court further held that 
the examination should remain confined only to the question of existence of 
public purpose. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the 
judgment of the Single Judge. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court was correct and justified in holding that while 
examining the validity of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894, the question of possession of land was absolutely irrelevant. 
(1090-Cl 
G 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Sri Nripati Ghoshal v. Premavati Kapur, [1996) 5 SCC 386, First Land 
Acqui

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