PANDIT JHANDU LAL & ORS. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1961] 2 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 16-11-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
459 
BY COURT: In accordance with the opinion of 
the majority, this appeal is allowed, the order passed 
by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial 
court restored with costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
PANDIT JHANDU LAL & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, 
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and 
K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition -
Constitutional · validity of enactment-
Construction of labour colony for a company, if a public purpose-
Test-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), ss. 4, 6, Part VII-
Constitution of India, Arts. 31(2), 31(5)(a). 
The Punjab Government issued notification under ss. 4 and 
6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and started proceedings for 
acquisition of lands for the construction of a labour colony 
under the Government sponsored Housing Scheme for the 
workers of the Thapar Industrial Workers' Co-operative Hous-
ing Society Ltd. The appellants challenged the acquisition 
proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground, 
inter alia, that the procedure prescribed by Part VII of the 
said Act had not been admittedly complied with. The Division 
Bench in affirming the order of dismissal passed by the trial 
Judge held that although Art. 31 of the Constitution by prohi-
biting compulsory acquisition of property except for a public 
purpose had made Part VII of the Act redundant, the present 
proceedings were saved since the acquisition was for a public 
purpose. 
Held, that the High Court was in error in holding that· the 
Constitution had rendered Part VII of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894, redundant or null and void, although it was right in 
dismissing the appeal. 
That Act, as an existing Act, was 
saved by Art. 31(5)(a) from being affected by Art. 31(2) of the 
Constitution. 
Acquisition of building sites for re.sidential houses for 
industrial Jabour is for a public purpose even apart from s. 17(2) 
The Stale of 
Punjab 
v. 
Sodhi 
Sukhdeu Singh 
Subba Rao J. 
;r960 
November ;r6. 
Pandit J handu 
Lal & Ors. 
v. 
The Slate flj 
Punjab G Ors. 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961) 
(b) of the Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Punjab 
Amendment) Act of 1953. 
Babu Barkava Thakur v. The State of Bombay [1961] I S.C.R. 
r2R, referred to. 
Although in the case of an acquisition for a company 
simpliciter, no declaration under s. 6 of the Act can be made 
without complying with the provisions of Part VII of the Act, 
it is not correct to say that no acquisition for a company for a 
public purpose can be made except under Part VII of the Act. 
If the cost of the acquisition is borne either wholly or partially 
by the Government, the purpose would be a public purpose 
within the meaning of the Act. But if the cost is entirely borne 
by the company it would be an acquisition for the company 
simpliciter and Part VII would apply. 
Since in the instant case a part of the compensation was to 
be borne by the Government, it was not necessary to comply 
with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. 
C1v1L APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 4 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and 
Order dated January 28, 1959 of the Punjab High 
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 52 of 1958 
arising out of the Judgment aud Order dated 
February 17, 1958 of the said High Court in Civil 
Writ Application No. 124 of 1957. 
C. B. Aggaru-ala, Daya Su·arup Mehra and R. S. 
Gheba, for the appellants. 
S. M. Sikri, Advowte General for the State of Punjab, 
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for respondent No. I. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and S. N. 
Andley, for Respondent No. 2. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of 1-ndia and T.M. 
Sen, for the Attorney-General for India (Intervener). 
1960. November 16. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
Sinha c. J. 
SINHA, C. J.-This appeal, by special leave grant-
ed on May 29, 1959, is directed against the decision of 
the Letters Patent Bench (G. D. Khosla, C. J., and 
Dulat, J.) dated January 28, 1959, affirming that of 
the learned single Judge (Bishan Narain, J.) dated 
February 17, 1958, whereby he dismissed the 
) 
•
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
appellants' Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Con. 
stitution. 
It appears that the appellants are the owners of, 
what is said to be, agricultural land, measuring about 
86 bighas odd, in village Munda Majra, Tehsil J aga-
dhari, in the district of Ambala. On October 27, 1954, 
the A

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