FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD. versus GUSTAVO RANATO DA CRUZ PINTO & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 20-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
1 
, 
FOMENTO RESORTS AND HOTELS LTD. 
v. 
GUSTAVO RANATO DA CRUZ PINTO & ORS. 
20th February, 1985 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, 
SABYASACRI MUKHARJI, JJ.) 
931 
Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules; 1963 Rule 4-Whether compliance 
of Rule 4 is mandatory before issuing the Notification under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in re~pecL of acqflisitlon of land for the purpose of 
a company-Practice and ProcJdure-Where several conte11.tlons factual afld legal 
are urged in a case and where there is a scope of an appeal from the decision 
of the Court1 High CourtJ and Courts below 3hould not merely rest its decisiPtt 
on one single point. 
The appellant made au application on the lSth November, 
1978 
under chapter VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of 
the lands earlier purchased by Respondent No. 1 herein. 
The Government 
issued on the 29th October, 1980 a notification for acquisition of the said 
land under section 4 or the Act which was published in the Government 
Gazette 
dated 30th 
October, 1980. 
Respondent No, I objected to 
the said notification. 
Subsequently the Government held an enquiry und~r 
section SA of the Act and, after submitting a report in March 1981, on or 
about 10th April 1981, the Deputy Collector issued notice to Respondent 
No. I that enquiry· under rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) 
Rules l 963 would be held on the 15th April, 1981 to which the latter 
filed his objections on merit by his letter dated 4th May, 1981. 
On 26th 
October, 1983, agree1neat was executed bt:twcen the government and the 
acquiring company. A notification under section 6 that the land in question 
was needed for the purpose of development of tourism, was published in 
the Government Gazette dated 27th October 1983. 
Respondent No. I, thereupon, filed a petition under Article 226 of 
the Constitution challenging the said notifications under sections 4 and 6 of 
the Land Acquisition Act. 
The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) 
quashed the said notifications on the first ground alone namely, th• noti· 
fications were bad for prior non-compliance with Rule 4 of the Land 
Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963, and noted that it was not necessary 
to deal with other grounds of challenge. 
Hence the appeal by special 
leave. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
938 
SUP!u!l4B COURT REPORTS 
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the case back, the Court 
HBLD : 
1. On a correct interpretation of the scheme of the Land 
Acquisition Act, it is not necessary that enquiry under ru1e 4 of the Land 
Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 must in all cases precede issuance of 
the ootiftcation under section 4 of ihe Act. 
In an appropriate case if it is 
possible, enquiry under rule 4(1) may be held before the issuance of the 
notification under section 4. 
But it is not a mandatory requirement that 
it must precede the issuance of the notification under the Act. [949B-C] 
Rqja Ram lalswal v. Collector, Allahabad & Another, (1980) 2 !LR 
Allahabad 269; conclusion approved, 
lhlbu B•rt:fa !latur v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra), AIR 
1960 SC 1203 at 1206, followed. 
Abdul HUJein Tayaball & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1968] 
I SCR 597, explained and distinguished. 
2.1. 
A consepectus of the provisions of the Land Acqui::>i,ion Act 
as well as Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 indic.:ite that there 
are two purposes of acquisition of land-one being for the public purpose 
and other for the purpose of a company, 
In case or acquisition for com. 
pany, the appropriate Government has to satisfy itself that such acquisition 
is needed and would be useful also for public need. [943E·P] 
:2.l 
Land Acquisition proceedings begin with the publication of the 
preliminary notification under scctiOn 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
When t.hc acquisition is for a company the purpose has to be investigated 
under 1ection 5A (by hearing objections and disposing them) or under 
section 40 necessarily after the notification under section 4 of the Act. 
Under section 6 if the Government is satisfied after considering the report, 
if any, made under section SA that any particular land was needed for 
public purposes or for a company a declaration shall be made to that effect 
subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. 
Sub·rule 4 of Rule 4 of 
the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 provides that no declaration 
shall be made by the Appropriate Gover

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