HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. versus DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 20-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 5-A and 6 
Nature and Interpretation-Act is an expropriatory legislation and should 
C be strictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent. 
Section 5-A-Right to make objections-ls a valuable right in favour of 
a person whose land is acquired-Having regard to Article 300-A, it is akin 
to a fundamental right-Hearing of objection must be effective and not mere 
D formality-Judicial review would lie for non compliance. 
E 
F 
Sections 4 and 6-Acquisitionfor Public Purpose-Formation of opinion 
as to public purpose must be made on proper application of mind by considering 
relevant factors and rejecting irrelevant factors-Acquisition for a corporation 
owned and controlled by the State is a public purpose. 
Section 5-A and 6-Notification of declaration of Acquisition-Need not 
contain reasons-But must be preceded by a decision of government taken on 
consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A, enquiry report and 
recommendations of collector along with the records of the proceedings sent 
to Government by the collector. 
Section 4, 5-A and 6-Acquisition, Decision making process-Judicial 
Review-Lies in case order suffers from illegality, irrationality, procedural 
impropriety or where statutory power is not exercised in fair and reasonable 
manner. 
G 
Sections 4, 5-A and 6-Judicial Review of Acquisition Proceedings-
Challenge to decision making process-Application of mind by Government-
Question whether objections raised by the owner objecting to the Acquisition 
of his land have been considered by the Government-High Court directed the 
State to produce records relating to the case-Affidavit filed stating that the 
H 
388 
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD."· DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI 
3 89 
records were not readily traceable-Counter affidavit to owners contentions A 
filed by collector alone-Held, if court in order to satisfY itself about existence 
of any grounds for judicial review, calls for records, same must be produced 
by the government along with counter affidavit-Failure to file the counter 
affidavit may be treated as Government's admission to the allegations made 
against it-Action required to be taken by the government is distinct and 
different from that of collector and collector is incompetent to affirm an affidavit B 
on behalf of government. 
The appellant Corporation was a tenant in the premises in question. 
On expiry of the lease period, an eviction petition was filed by the 
Respondent-owner against the appellant. The suit was decreed and an C 
appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed. The appellant thereafter sent 
a requisition to the Special Deputy Collector for acquisition of the land 
for the purpose of continuing the business. Notification for acquisition was 
issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent filed a 
detailed objection contending that there existed no public purpose for 
acquisition of his land. After giving an opportunity of hearing to D 
respondent, collector conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to 
the Government. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. 
Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court contending inter a/ia 
that there had been a total non-application of mind on the part of the State 
Government both before issuing the notification u/s 4(1) and the E 
declaration u/s 6 of the Act. A counter affidavit affirmed by Collector was 
filed both for himself as also the State. The High Court directed the State 
to produce the records relating to the case. An affidavit affirmed by the 
Principal Secretary to the Government was filed stating that the records 
were not readily traceable. The High Court allowed the writ petition. 
Hence this appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right in favour 
of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired. Having regard to the 
provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India it has G 
been held to be akin to a fundamental right. The State in exercise of its 
power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a 
person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose 
and reasonable compensation therefore must be paid. Hearing given to a 
person must be an effective one and not a m

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