DEVINDER SINGH AND ORS versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

" ) 
~ 
* 
~ 
~ 
DEVINDER SINGH AND ORS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
~ 
y 
Land Acquisition: 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Ss. 3, 5, 6 and 41 and Provisions c 
under Part II and Part VII of the Act/Companies Act, 1956; s. 617/Land 
Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963; r.4: 
Acquisition of land by State for establishing an industry by a 
private company-Requirement of-Held: State must form an opinion 
D 
ascertaining the purpose of acquisition-And it must also form an 
opinion that the land in question is not an agricultural land-If 
acquisition is for public purpose, procedure laid down under Part II 
of the Act applies, else Part VII of the Act would be applicable-Public 
purpose not to be assumed-Formation of opinion must be on the basis 
E 
of material on record and the authority bound to follow the procedure 
strictly-Agreement entered into between landowners and the State 
does not mention about payment of compensation or part thereof in 
lieu of acquisition-Since, there was no material on record, State 
formed an opinion after execution of the agreement ignoring 
F 
mandatory requirements of the Act-Statutory requirements in terms 
--~ 
of r. 4 of the Rules imperative in character, thus, calls for strict 
compliance-Since there was non-compliance of r. 4, exercise of 
jurisdiction by the State Government under Part VII of the Act 
erroneous-Hence, impugned judgment cannot be sustained, thus set 
G 
aside. 
Interpretation of Stat_utes: 
....( 
Exproprietory Legislature-Construction of 
475 
H 
476 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Land acquisition-Purpose-
Procedure under Part II or Part VII-Applicability of 
Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963; Rule 4-Applicability 
of 
B 
Words and phrases: 
'Company, ' 'Corporation owned by State ', 'public purpose '-
Meaning of in the context of Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
C 
Appellants were owners of various tracts of agricultural lands 
situate in a Village in the State of Punjab where respondent No. 5, a 
Company intended to set up a project. It requested the State 
Government to acquire lands in question in terms of the provisions of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State Government issued a 
D notification purported be under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 
the lands in question; a declaration was issued in terms of Section 6 of 
the Act and later, an agreement was entered into by and between the 
Company and the State. Appellants filed \Vrit petitions questioning the 
purported acquisition proceedings. During pendency of the petitions, 
notices in terms of Section 9 of the Act were issued and an award was 
E made. Later, a sum of Rs.100/- was deposited by the State as a token 
amount for acquisition of the said lands in question. By reason of the 
impugned judgment, the High Court held that the acquisition was for a 
public purpose; that acquisition of the lands in question was not a 
F colourable exercise of power and it was made in terms of the provisions 
contained in Part II of the Act and not Part VII thereof, as the State 
had also contributed a sum ofRs.100/-for the purpose of acquisition of 
~ -
lands; that execution of the agreement with Respondent No.5-Company 
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act although made on the same 
G day, the same did not suffer from the vice of non-application of mind; 
that since respondent No. 5 was not a private company, statutory 
limitations contained in s.44B of the Act are not attracted; and that Rule 
4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 being directory in 
>-- _ 
nature, it was not necessary to comply with it Hence the present appeals. 
H 
Appellant-land owners contended that the High Court erred in 
} 
DEVINDER SINGH v. STATE 
477 
... .,,,._ r 
opining that the lands in question could be compulsorily acquired for a A 
company, other than private company, in accordance with the provisio~ 
of Part II of the Land Acquisition Act; that in view ofthe insertion ot 
clause (viii) of sub-section (f) in s.3, provision of Part Il were not available 
for acquisition ofland for companies; and that action on the part of the 
State in entering into the agreement and issuing a declaration undet B 
f 
s.6 of the Act on the same day was in excess of its power under the Act. 
y 
Respondent No.5-Company submitted that acquisition having been 
made for a public purpose, and a part of the expen

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