MUNSHI SINGH & OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 23-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
i 
973 
MUNSHI SINGH & OTHERS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. 
August 23, 1972 
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.] 
' 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-s. SA-No opportunity was available 
to the apoellam to file objection u/s. 5·A in absence of definite scheme and 
the pul>lic purpose for which the land was required was vague and inde~ 
finite-Whether the acquisition proceedings bad in law. 
Ui•u•r 
1ihe 
U.P .. (Regulation 
of 
Blllildiing 
Operations) 
~ct, 
1958 a notification was issued by the 
U.P. Government, 
declarmg 
Gha~iabad a regulated area under S. 3 of the s~i~. Act. 
On July 16, 
1960 a notification under S. 4 of the La'·' AcquIS1IIon Act, was ISsued 
by the State Government declaring its intention to acquire land measuring 
about 34 000 acres for planned development of the area. On December 
23 1961, a notification was issued under Sections 6 and 17 of the Acqui-
siti:X, Aci in respect of an area of 19.75 acres. This was follov.:ed .by 
other notifications and on February 9, 1962, 
by another notification 
under S. 4 was issued by modifying the earlier notification dated July 
16, 1960. By thls notification, the said 34000 acres was reduced to 6158 
acres. 
On July 4, 1962, the appellant made an application 
to the 
Land 
Acquisition Officer, for supplying a copy of the scheme in order to file 
objection under S. 5-A of the Acquisition Act. 
The Land Acquisition 
Officer how eyer, ordered that no such scbemes of the planned develop-
ment was available in his office. On September 4, 1962, the State Gov-
ernment sanctioned the Master Plan· of Ghaziabad under the Regulation 
Act. Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ petition 1in the High Court 
challenging the validity of the aforesaid notification. 
A batch of 39 
writ petitions, including the appellants were allowed by the High Court 
and the notifications under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act were quasbed by 
the High Court on the ground of invalidity of piecemeal notifications. 
On February 9, 1966, this Court decided in State of Madhya Pradesh 
and others v. Bishnu Prashad & Ors. [1966] 3 S.C.R. 557, that piece-
meal and successive notifications was not p~rmissible. 
On February 20, 1967, the President of India promulgated the Land 
Acquisition (Amendment ·and Validation) Ordinance and this Ordinance 
was challenged in the High Court by the appellant. Thereafter, an Act 
was passed on the same lines as the Ordinance. The provision of the 
Act were also challenged· before the High Court .by necessary 
amend-
ments in the writ petitions. This Court in Udairam Sharma & Ors, v. 
Union of India & Ors., [1968] 3 S.C.R. 41, upheld rb,e validity of the 
Acquisition (Amendment) Act of 1967. 
Thereafter, the 
High Court 
dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants. 
The counsel for the appellants confined his arguments mainly to one 
question. namely that no proper, reasonable, or effective opportunity was 
available to the appellant to file by objection under S. 5-A of the Acquisi-
tion Act, inasmuch as the notification gave no indication that different 
pieces of land 
would 
be acquired 
for different 
authorities 
in 
di!fere!lt circumstfoces and for d;.fferent purposes. Further, the a!)tiellant 
die! not get a reasonahle opportunity of objecting under s.. 5-A 
sin::e the purpose sho\vn \Vas extremely Vague and there was no definite 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1973) 1 S.C.R. 
scheme before the State Government at the material time 
to 
show 
how the land would be developed and to what use it will be put. It was 
pointed out that different notifications published under S. 6 of the Acqui-
sition Act from time to time clearly indicated that the State Government 
did not have any specific scheme of development at the time the notifi-
cation under S. 4 was published. 
It was pointed 
out that 
the whole 
object of s. 5-A would be defeated if the public purpose 
was 
stated 
vaguely and without any indication of the nature or the purpose for which 
the land is being or is intended to be acquired. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : ( i) The Acquisition Act was enacted to amend the law for 
the acquisition of land for public purpose and for Companies.· The ex-
pressior, "Public Purpose" was defined by S. 3-F. The expression ''Pub· 
lie Purpose" includes provision for or in connection with the laying out 
of village sites, townships or the extension of planned development or im-
provement of existing village sites or townsh

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