LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. versus DURGA PADA MUKHERJEE & OTHERS

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 21-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

...... 
LAND ACQUISffiON COLLECTOR & ANR. 
v. 
DURGA PADA MUKHERJEE & OTHERS 
August 21, 1980 
[Y. V. 0IANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND 
A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.) 
·573 
Land Ai:qltisiti~-~ -Act-Section 6--Declaration that land is required for a 
public purpos~If conclusive evidence-Mala fides 'and colourable exercise of 
power-Burden of proof-On whom lies-Burden of proving that land acquir~ 
ed is not suitable for industrial activity-On whom lies. 
The· State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act stating that the land referred to thereill was needed ·for a 
public Ji7Urpose, namely, for expansion- of the factory_ o~ a Company at the· 
expense of the company. 
On the respondents• objections that the purported 
purpose was· not a public purpose in that the land was being acquired for the 
benefit of a company, the State Government issued another notification in. 
tespect of the same land as also some more land stating that the land was 
·needed for industrial development at public expense. 
Objections were again 
raised by the land owners that though ostensibly the purpose was. a public 
purpo!e in truth it was a private purpose, namely, for the benefit of a com ... 
pany. In cancellation of thei first notification the Government issued another 
notification under section 6. . 
Dismissing the respondents' writ petitions under Article 226 a single Judge 
of the High Court held that the industrial development of a particular area 
was in itself a public purpose and no further details need be given in thei 
notifications. 
On appeal, a Division Bench of the !Ugh Court held that 3.lthough a decta: ... 
ration under section 6 was final and conclusive as to the need for acquisition 
and as to the purpose being a public purpose, the aggrieved party could cbal· 
. lenge a declaration only on the ground of mala tides and colourable ·exercise 
of power and that in the instant case no such allegation had been made out. 
The appeals wcie, however, allowed on the ground that the State Government 
failed to produce evidence that the }and was being acquired for a public pur ... 
pose and not for the benefit of a company. 
· 
Allowing the appeals. 
HELD: The High Court erred in accepting the appeals in view of its 
finding that mala fides or colourable exercise of power on the part of the State 
· Govern:nent had not been established. 
1. It is weII~settled law that a declaration under section 6 of the Act 
shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public pur ... 
pose, the only exception to this being that the declaration was issued 
mala fide or in colourable exercise of power. The third notification 
16-647 S.C. India/80 
A 
B 
c· 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
i 
! 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G. 
H 
574. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) 1 S.C.R. 
in this case had to be taken at its face value in so far as the purpose 
was concerned. [577 B; 578 BJ 
2. The burden of proving mala fides or colourable exercise of p~wer is 
. ''( 
on the party claiming the benefit of the exception, namely the respon-
. dents. This burden could nof be held to have been discharged by a 
mere allegation in that behalf. [578 HJ 
3. ·If the argument that it is for the State to satisfy the Court about the 
nature of the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is 
accepted the whole object of the provision under which the conclusive 
presumption has to be raised iri regard to the nature of the purpose 
would be defeated. It cannot, therefore, be held merely on the 
strength of the absence of production of documentary evidence by the 
State that the onus (which rested heavily on the respondents) to prove 
mala tides or colourable exercise of power on the part of the State 
Government has been discharged .. [578 H, 579 A·B] 
4. The respondents have produced no material to show that the assertion 
about the public purpose .as stated in the third notification waa in· 
correct for the reason that the acquired land was not suitable for any 
industry· or that no industrial activity, except that by a company, had 
been undertaken in the neighbourhood of the acquired area~ There 
/ 
is a clear averment to the contrary by the State which was not con· 
traverted by the respondents and that cuts at the root of their plea 
of mala tides or colourable exercise of power. [579 B-C; E], 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO~: Civil Appeal Nos. 143-147 of 
1970. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17-2-1967 of the Calcutta 
High Court in App

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