HARSOOKDAS BALKISSENDAS versus THE FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 79 · Decided: 08-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
' 
.·":,.< _-
HARSOOKDAS BALKISSENDAS 
v. 
THE FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. 
April 8, 1975 
lA. N. RAY, C. J. AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER J.) 
Land Acquisition Act, s. 49(2)-Scope of. 
Section 49(2) of the Land Acquisition Act provides that if in the case of 
:any claim under s. 23(1),. thirdly, by a person interested, on account of the 
severing of the land to be acquired from his other land the appropriate Govern-
ment is of the opinion that the claim is unreasonable and excessive, it may, at 
any time before the Collector. has made his award, order the acquisition of the 
whole of the land of \Vhich the land first sought to be acquired forms a part. 
A part cf a large area of land belonging to the appellant was sought to be 
acquired by the State. The appellant put forward a claim on account of damage 
caused by severance, under s. 23(1) thirdly. 
The claim was held to be un-
reasonable and excessive, by the Government. Sanction for the acquisition of 
the entire land of the appellant having been approved, a further portion of the 
land v;.·as acquired. The appellant contended: (1) that s. 49(2) applies only to 
land with buildings, that the landi acquired was a vacant ]and with no house or 
buildings; (2) that he made the claim for compensation under third and founb. 
clauses of s .. 23 of the Act and therefore s. 49(2) had no application; and (3) 
that the acquisition of a portion of the land was not for public purpose as there 
v;as no further declaration of public purpose and the acquisition Was therefore 
invalid. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD :(!) (a) Land is defined ins. 3(a) of the Act to include benefits to 
ari'le out of land, things 
attached to the 
earth or permanently 
fastened to 
anything attached to the earth. Therefore, land contemplated in s. 49(2)_ of the 
Act may be land or land or land including building or part of a building. [81B-CJ 
(b) The contention that if there is vacant land, s. 49(2) of the Act ha.<i no 
application is not only a misreading of the decision of the Court in State of Bihar 
v. Kundan Singh [1964J 3 S. C. R. 382 but also the relevant Section. [81 Dj. 
In the instant case the contention of the appellant that it was vacant land 
was also contrary to facts. The material on record shows that there were certain 
structures on the land, ,[80 H]. 
7 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(2) If a claim under the third clause of s. 23(J) of the Act is made the 
requirement of s. 49(2) of: the· Act is satisfied. Addition of a claim under the 
fourth clause of s. 23(1) of the Act makes no difference. [82 BJ. 
G 
(3) (a) Sub·scctions (2) and (3) of s. 49 of the Act indicate that the acqui-
sitios. !or public purpose need not be stated. Section 49'(3) of tbe Act specifically 
provides that no fresh declaration under ss. 6 to 10 of the Act shall be ne~-
sary. 
Section 49(2) of the Act implies public purpose inasmuch as the com-
pensation for_ acquisition is payable out of the public land. 
Sections 4 and 5 
of the Act are excluded because of proposal by owner! in case of further acqui-
sition under s. 49(1) ofi the Act and proposal by Government for further acqui-
sition in a case under s. 49(2) of the Act. All that is necessary is that in one 
H 
case the owner of the land and in the other the Government must act under 
~s. 49(1) and 49(2) of the Act, respectively before the award is made. 'fhe 
public purpose is to prevent people from making exaggerated clain1s. 
Section 
~9(2) of the Act is subsidiary to public purpose. ~The acquisition is jn aid of 
that purpose. [83 A-CJ. 
(b) Section 49 (2) of the Act does not require that the opinion shall be formed 
after hearing the person concerned. [83 DJ. 
"" -. 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] SUPP. S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 558 of 197(} 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26th May, 1965 
of the 
Cakutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 260 of 1973. 
L. M. Singhvi, 0. C. Mathur, D. N. Mishra and J. B. Dadachanji 
for the appellant. 
Niren De, Attorney General of India, D. N. Mukherjee, G. S. 
Chatterjee, and Sukumar Basu for respondents Nos. 1 and 4. 
Niren De, Attorney General of India, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. 
Bhatia for respondent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J.-This appeal by certificate raises the question as to 
whether section 49(2) of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred 
to as the Act has any application to the acquisition of the land i

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