PRATIBHA NEMA AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 30-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRA TIBHA NEMA AND ORS. 
v. 
STA TE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 30, 2003 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND P. VENKA TARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Land Acquisition Act; Part II and Part VII, Sections 3(j), 4(1), 5(A), 6, 
C and 9(2)/lndustrial Policy and Action Plan 1994: 
Acquisition of land for setting up an industry in private sector-Validity 
of-Held, land was acquired for industrial growth in the public interest-
Active role/initiative shown by the private company and expeditious action 
in processing of the acquisition proceedings by the Government could not 
D be given different colour as it promotes public purpose-When the Government 
satisfies about the existence of public purpose for acquisition of land, no 
fault could be found with such act of the Government-However, State 
Government to make afresh assessment as to the requirement of land to meet 
present and future requirements-No personal malice could be attributed to 
E the public representatives/authorities-It cannot be concluded that the 
Government machinery identified itself with the private interest of the company 
forsaking public interest. 
Public purpose-Proof of-Held, even contribution of a nominal SU'11 
towards the cost of acquisition/assurance to sanction the funds by the 
F Government could be considered as sufficient compliance with the Proviso 
to Section 6-Acquires the character of public purpose-Interpretation of 
Statutes. 
G 
Words and Phrases: 'public purpose' and 'vagueness in public 
purpose'-Meaning of in the context of Land Acquisition Act. 
The State Government, at the instance of a private company/one of the 
respondents, had notified certain land of the appellants for acquisition under 
the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of establishment of a diamond park in 
public interest. The land so acquisitioned was proposed to be utilized for setting 
up of industries by private companies-respondents. Later, declaration under 
H 
890 
PRA TIBHA NEMA v. ST A TE. 
891 
Section 6(A) of the Act was published. Before the concerned authority could A 
take over possession, aggrieved land-holders filed writ petitions in which High 
Court granted status quo. Writ petitions were dismissed thereafter. Land holders 
had filed SLPs. Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs on the basis of an 
undertaking given by the State that the notifications issued under Section 6 
would be withdrawn and instead the procedure as provided under Section 5(A) 
would be followed. State followed the procedure and later issued a fresh B 
notification under Section 6 of the Act. Aggrieved, landholders challenged the 
notification which was dismissed by the High Court. Hen,:e t1•e present appeals. 
In an I.A., the Court framed questions pertaining tL contributions by 
the private companies towards payment of compensation to the land holders 
for consideration by the High Court. The findings submitted by the High Court C 
were against the appellants and as such challenged by them. 
It was contended for the appellants that the Land proposed to be acquired 
for public purpose at the instance of and intended to be handed over to the 
private company and therefore Part VII of L.A. Act should have been complied 
with; that the public purpose as mentioned in the notification was vague; that D 
the area of land proposed to be acquired was in excess of reasonable 
requirements; and that environmental norms were not taken into consideration 
by the State Government. 
Dismissing the appea.ls, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A public purpose is involved in the acquisition of land for 
setting up an industry in private sector as it would ultimately benefit the 
people. However, any and every industry need not necessarily promote public 
purpose and there could be exceptions which negate the public purpose. But, 
E 
it must be borne in mind that the satisfaction of the Government as to the 
existence of public purpose cannot be lightly faulted and it must remain F 
uppermost in the mind of the Court. The acquisition under Part VII of the 
Land Acquisition Act is not divorced from the element of public purpose. The 
concept of public purpose runs through the gamut of Part VII as well. 
(904-F-H[ 
Somawantiv.Stateof Punjab, AIR(1963)SC 151 andR.l. Arorav.State 
of Uttar Pradesh, AIR (1964) SC 1230, followed. 
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (197011 SCC 671; Manubhai Jehtalal 
Patel v. State a/Gujarat, [1983( 4 SCC 553 and Bajirao T. Kate v. State of 
-G 
Maharashtra, !19951 2 sec 442, relied on. 
H 
892

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