JAGE RAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 02-03-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
871 
JAGE RAM AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
March 2, 1971 
[K. S. HEGDE AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ss. 17(2) (c), 38 to 44B-Public purpose-
Decla"ration by Govern1r1ent not, open to challenge unless acquisition is 
for collateral purpO!ie or i.i; a colourab/P. ext>rcise of power-Acquisition 
for Company-Stale contributing towards cost-Proceedings need not be 
taken under ss. 38 to 44B-Sect<on 17(2) (c) cannot be interpreted 
ejusdem Generis-Scope of s. 17(2) (c)-Maxims-Ejusdem Generis-
Scope of Rule. 
In March 1969, the respondent State issued a notification under sec• 
tion 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, as amended by the Punjab 
Legislature, for acquisition of the appellants' land. The notification stated 
that the land was likely to be required to be taken by Government, at 
public expense, for a public purpose, namely, the sett;ng up of a factory 
for the starting of an industry and, further that action under section 
17(2) (c) would be taken on the ground of urgency and provisions of 
s. 5A will not apply in regard to the said acquisition. 
The appellants 
filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the 
acquisition on the ground, inter alia, that there was no urgency in the 
matter, of requiring the land therefore recourse to s. 17 was not justified. 
The state government pleaded that since the Government of India had 
extended the time for completion of the project till April 30, 1969, it 
had become nece>&ary to take immediate steps to acquire the land. The 
High Court uismissed the petition. 
In the appeal to this Court it was 
contended that (i) the acquisition in question being one for the benefit 
of a Company, proceedings should have been taken under ss. 38 to 44B 
of the Act, and that there was no public purpose involved in the case; 
(ii) there w"' no urgency and hence recourse could not be had to section 
17 of the Act; and (iii) s. 17(2)(c) was inapplicable to the ·facts of the 
case, because, though s. 17 ( 2)( c) read by itself covered a very large 
field, l!Jlplying the ejusdem generis Rule that provision had to be given 
a narrower meaning because of the provisions of s. 17(2) (a) and (b). 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (i) On the facts of the case the purpose for which land was 
acquired was a public purpose. The question whether the starting of an 
industry is in public interest or not is essentially a question that has to. 
be decided by the Government. So long as it is not established that the 
acquisition is sought to be made for some collateral purpose or that there 
is a colourable exercise of poww the declaration of the government that 
it is made for a public purpose is not open to challenge, [874 E-G] 
.smr. Somavantl and Ors. v. State of Pun/ab, (1963] 2 S.C.R. 774 and 
Raia Anand Brahma Shah v. State of U.P., [1967) 1 S.C.R. 373, referred 
to. 
In view of t~e: fact .that the State Government had contributed towsrds 
the cost of acqu1S11ton ti was not necessary to proceed wlth the acquisition 
under Part VII of the Act, [875 A] 
-
·-
'8 7 2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971]3 S.C.R. 
(ii) On the facts of the case there was urgency. The conclusion of 
the Government in a given case that there was urgency is entitled to. , 
weight, if not conclusive. 1 
(iii) ,In_Jnterpreting cl. (c) of s. 17(2) the rule of ejusdem generis 
cannot be applied. If a given provision is plain and unambiguous and the 
legislative intent is clear, there is no occasion to call into _aid that rule. 
Under els. (a), (b) and (c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 17 the decision to acquire 
land· has not to be made by the same authority but by different authorities. 
Further, the conditions under whlch the acquisition has to be made differ 
from clause to clause. Therefore, there is no basis to say that the general 
words in cl. (c) follow the particular and specific words in els. (b) and 
I c). [877 E; 879 H] 
State o/ Bomba.v v. Ali Gulshan, [1952] S.C.R. 867, Lilavati Bal v. 
SMe of Bombay, [1957] S.C.R. 721, K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras, 
A.I.R. i 960 S.C. 1050, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2034 of 
1969. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 7, 1969 of '..lie 
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 850 of 1969. 
K. L. Gosain, N. N. Goswamy, S. K. Mehta, K. L. Mehta and 
K. R; Nagaraja, for the appellant. 
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for respondeints Nos, 1 and 
2. 
A 
B 
c 
D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.