NETAI BAG AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 424 · Decided: 27-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NETAI BAG AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Railway Project-Land acquired for-Surplus land-Leased out to a 
C private party-Procedure of tender and public auction, not followed-Effect 
of-State action-Fairness of-Onus to prove-Held, lies on the person 
challenging the said action-Non floating of tender or holding of public 
auction does not amount to arbitrariness in all cases-On peculiar facts and 
circumstances of the case, action of State in leasing out land to the private party 
D not illegal, arbitrary or malafide---Constitution of India, I950-Article 14. 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Articles 226 and 32-Judicial Review-Scope of-Land acquired for a 
public purpose-Surplus land leased out to a private party-Procedure of 
E tender or public auction not followed-Held, Court can examine only the 
fairness of the decision making process and cannot interfere with the ultimate 
policy decision of the State. 
Article 14-Government land-Transferred to a private party-
Procedure of tender and public auction not followed-Effect of-Held, 
p arbitrariness cannot be presumed in all cases. 
Articles 226 and 136-Appeal-Scope of-Held, appeal being a 
continuation of the original proceedings, scope of inquiry cannot be enlarged 
· Delay!Laches-Effect of-Land acquired for public purpose-Surplus 
land leased out to a privaie party-Challenge after three years-Huge project 
G already came into existence with an investment of crores of Rupees-
Interference by Court-Justification of-Held, delay cast doubts on appellants' 
bonafides,-No interference called for as it would affect employment and 
industrial growth in the State. 
H 
Practice and Procedure 
424 
t 
NET Al BAG v. ST ATE 
425 
Plea-New plea of arbitrariness-Raising of-Held, not permissible. 
A 
Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respondent-State acquired 
certain land for constructing a railway project The surplus land surrendered 
by the railways was given to the Animal Husbandary Department of the State 
for setting up a slaughter house at Mourigram. The State Government's 
Abattoir Project at Durgapur was running in losses. Thus, realising its B 
inability to profitably run the Abattoir Project, State Government leased out 
. the surplus land to respondent No. S, a private party by realising 100% 
market value. Respondent No. S also took over the Durgapur Project from 
the State. Appellants 1 to 4, heirs of the erstwhile owners and appellants S 
and 6 claiming to be propounders of vegetarianism filed a writ petition C 
challenging the transfer of land. The said writ petition and consequent writ 
appeal were dismissed by High Court Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellants it was contended that the respondent-State 
without issuing any advertisement or resorting to the procedure of auction 
and tender, secretly leased out the land on a throw away price which was D 
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
On behalf of respondent-State it was contended that there was no defect 
or error of law on the part of the Government in leasing out the land since 
the proposed project which had been set up on the said land had generated job 
opportunities to more than 300 people and was likely to earn foreign exchange E 
to the extent df crores of Rupees per year; that the appellants have not pleaded 
or argued the arbitrary action of respondents before the High Court and thus, 
High Court was justified in dismissing their writ pet!tion; that the writ petition 
suffered from unexplained delay and laches. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The action of the respondent-State in executing the lease-
deed with respondent No. 5 was not unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary or actuated 
by any extraneous consideration. Thus, there is no justification for interference 
with the State action of or judgment of High Court (441-H; 442-D] 
2.1. It is true that generally when any State iand is intended to be 
transferred or the State largesse decided to be conferred, res~rt should be 
· had to public auction or transfer by way of inviting tenders from the people. 
F 
G 
That would be a sure method of guaranteeing the compliance of mandate of 
Article 14 of the Constitution. Non-floating of tenders or not holding of public H 
426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A action would not in all cases be deemed to be the result of the exercise of the 
exe

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