KEDAR NATH YADAV versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 31-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 l S.C.R. 263 
KEDAR NATH YADAV 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8438 of2016) 
AUGUST 31, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Parts II and VII; ss. 3(j), 4, 6, 5A. 9 and 11 - Acquisition of 
lancf - At the instance of a particular Company for its project -
Notification uls 4(1) stating therein that the land was likely to be 
needed to be taken by the Government/Government Undertaking/ 
Development Authorities for a public purpose viz. employment 
generation, socio-economic development by setting up an industrial 
project of a particular Company - Objections u/s 5-A filed -
Objections were rejected by Land Acquisition Collector and stated 
in its report that the acquisition by State Industrial Development 
Corporation was for public purpose - Piirsuant thereto Notification 
u/s. 6 issued - Award of compensation - The Corporation took 
possession of the land - Lease Deed executed in favuur of the 
Company - Acquisition proceedings challenged - High Court upheld 
the acquisition - On appeal held: Pt;r V. Gopala Gowda, J.: 
Acquisition in the present case was for 'a Company and hence not 
covered under 'public purpose' - When the acquisition is for a 
company, procedure to be adopted is laid down in Part VII r/w rules 
framed thereunder - Since the procedure under Part VII was not 
followed, the acquisition is grossly perverse, illegal and void ab 
initio - The objections u/s 5-A have been rejected without assigning 
any clear reason or application of mind rendering the report of the 
Land Acquisition Collector invalid - The award of compensation is 
also vitiated for non-compliance of provisions uls. 9 - Per Arun 
Misltra, J.: There can be an acquisition for public purpose and 
ultimately the land may go on lease or other mode of transfer 'to a 
company in case the compensation is paid out of public revenue -
In the present case the State Industrial Development Corporation 
i.e. a Govt. Authority was the acquiring body and compensation 
paid by. it is to be treated out of public revenue - Therefore, the 
263 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
264 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
r20l61 l l S.C.R. 
acquisition was for public purpose and hence procedure adopted 
under Part II cannot be said to be impermissible - Non-compliance 
of provisions under s.9 in awarding the compensation would also 
not vitiate the Notifications ulss. 4 and 6 - However, there was no 
objective consideration of objections u/s. 5-A at any stage - The 
inquiry held uls. 5-A was a farce and therefore, the entire acquisition 
stands vitiated -- Per Court: Acquisition of the land is illegal and 
void - Directions to restore the possession of the land to respective 
land-owners - Compensation which has already been paid, not to 
be recovered - Land-owners who have not withdrawn the 
compensation, permitted to withdraw the same. 
Part-JI and Part VII-Distinction between-PerArun Mishra, 
J.: Existence or non-existence of a public purpose is not a primary 
distinguishing factor between the acquisition under Part II and that 
under Part VII - The real point of distinction is the source of.funds 
to cover the cost of acquisition - The second proviso to s.6(I) is the 
main driving ground for the two types of acquisit:"ri. 
Practice and Procedure: 
Government litigant - Change in stand by subsequent 
Government - Permissibility - Held: Per V. Gopa/a Gowda, J.: 
Though rule of law cannot be sacrificed for the sake of fi1rthering 
political agenda - However, the subsequent Government can change 
the stand if there is material on record to show that the earlier action 
by the Government was illegal or suffered from legal malafides or 
colourable exercise of power. 
Affidavits - Binding effect, on the Supreme Court - Held: 
Per V. Gopala Gowda, J.: Supreme Court is not bound by affidavits 
and counter affidavits filed by parties - The Court in exercise of its 
power u/Art.136 can decide the legality of the issue on the basis of 
the material on record - Constitution of IndiaArt.-136. 
Doctrines/Principles: 
Principles of stare decisis - Discussed. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: Per V. Gopala Gowda, J. 
1.1 It cannot be said that the State of West Bengal cannot 
KEDAR NATH YADAV v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
be allowed to resile from the position taken by them in their 
pleadings, that Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no 
application in the instant case and the acquisiti

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