P. JANARDHANA REDDY versus STATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 13-07-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
P. JANARDHANA REDDY 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 13, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952-Section 3-Compensation scam-
Payment of exorbitant compensation to land holders on acquisition of land 
by State Government under decree of Civil Courts-High Court initiating 
A 
B 
suo motu action and stayed the payment of compensation-Appointment of C 
a Commission under the Act by State Government after informing the High 
Court-Formation of opinion for appointing a Commission-Held, there is 
no prescribed form or manner to express the opinion-Held, on facts, it is a 
matter of public importance which requires detailed inquily-Notification of 
appointment of Commission of Inquiry is legal and valid-Land Acquisition D 
Act, 1894. 
Lands were acquired by the respondent-State Government for 
construction of a canal and housing sites for the poor after passing awards 
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On reference under the Act with 
regard to quantum of compensation fixed by Land Acquisition Officers, the E 
Civil Courts enhanced the compensation. The compensation determined by 
the Civil Courts· were found to be .too exorbitant as compared to the 
compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officers. The State 
Government discovered several irregularities committed in the proceedings 
and before any action could hr initiated, a part of the compensation amount F 
had already been withdrawn by decree holders. The State Government 
published a statement through newspapers that a stay had been obtained from 
Court for future disbursement of amounts to decree holders. On certain 
clarifications sought by the Civil Court regarding the statement made by the 
State Government and the payment of the compensation to decree holders, the 
District Court sought guidance from the High Court. 
G 
The High Court treated the letter from the District Court as a writ 
Petition and issued notices to the respondents and stayed the payment of 
compensation to the decree holders. The State Government initiated 
investigation through its investigating agencies. The State Government also 
969 
I-I 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A initiated an enquiry by appointing a Principal Secretary as Inquiry Officer 
to look into the alleged irregularities in the matter of payment of compensation 
for the acquired lands. 
When the compensation scam came up for discussion before the 
B 
Legislative Assembly, the State Government proposed appointment of a sitting 
Judge of the High Court as a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the 
Commission oflnquiry Act, 1952. However, no resolution was passed to the 
effect. W~en the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the State Government 
informed the Court that the necessary notification for appointment of 
Commission would be issued shortly. Subsequently, the State Government 
c issued a notification appointing a Commission under the Act. A Writ Petition 
was filed before the High Court assailing the appointment of the Commission 
on th~ ground that the Commission was constituted on the direction of the 
High Court and that the State Government had not formed an opinion as 
re,quired under Section 3 of the Act before. issuing a notification. The High 
Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the notification. Hence these 
D appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. It is the settled position that the appointment of a Commission 
is a matter at the discretion of the appropriate Government; such an 
E appointment is meant primarily for the purpose of information of the 
Government; the Commission does not adjudicate on any matter; its report 
has no value per se excepting giving advice and providing guidance to the 
Government. On a plain reading of the statutory provisions of the Commission 
oflnquiry Act, 1952, it is clear that there is no prescribed form or particular 
F 
manner for the appropriate Government to express its opinion that it is 
necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Such opinion may be expressed 
in any manner by which the public would get the information about such 
appointment. [977-D-F] 
1.2. The controversy is a matter of public importance and it is but 
G appropriate that the State Government wanted a detailed enquiry in the matter 
for its information and guidance. On the facts and circumstances of the case, 
the High Court took a hyper technical view of the matter in which the State 
Government wh

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