R. L. ARORA versus STATE OF U. P.

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 15-12-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
149 
.R. L. ARORA 
v. 
STATE OF U. P. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition-Acquisition for Cf!mp<;iny-"Work likely 
w prove useful to the public", Meaning· of-Right of access w 
per.ans having business with company-Product of company 
being useful to the public-If satisfy requirement-Land Acquisi-
tion Act, 1894 [1of1894], ss. 6, 40, 41. 
The Government acquired appellant's land for a company 
for setting up a textile manchinery parts factory. 
The entire 
compensation for the acquisitio11 was to be paid by the 
company. The Government was satisfied that the product of 
the company would be useful to the public and the agreement 
between the company and the Government provided that those 
who had business with the company shall have access to the 
land and works. 
The notifications under ss. 4 and 6 of the 
Land acquisition Act, 1894, were issued showing that the 
land was acquired for the company. The appellant contended 
that the notification under: s. 6 was invalid as the acquisition 
was not for 
the construction of any work which was 
likely to prove useful to the public as contemplated by s. 40 
(l)(b) read with cl. (5) of s. 41. 
Held, (per Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupia and 
Ayyangar, JJ., Sarkar, J. contra), that the notification under 
s. 6 of the Act wa> 
invalid and the proceedings should be 
quashed. 
Section 40 (l)(b), which alone could apply to the 
case, provided that in case of acquisition for a company 
the Government could give its consent if the acquisition was 
needed for the construction of some work which was likely to 
prove useful to the public. 
For such cases cl. 
(5) of s. 41 
provided that the agreement between the company and the 
Government shall state the terms on which the public shall be 
entitled to use the works. These provisions had to be read 
together and required that the work should be directly useful 
to the 
public and that the agreement should contain a term 
as to ho\v 
the 
public shall have the right to use the work 
directly thernselves. 
The provision of access to the land or 
works to those having business 
with the company or the fact 
that the product of the con1pany would b~ useful to the public 
were not sufficient to 
bring 
the acquisition for a cornpany 
withir:t the meaning of the relevant \vords in ss. 40 and 4 l. 
The satisfaction of the <;;-overnment that the work was likely 
1961 
December 1. 
IHI 
B. L •Arora 
.. 
S<.11 of U.P. 
w--.J. 
150 SUPREME ootmr REPORTS [1962) SUPP. 
to prove useful to the public upon a wrong COD1tructlon of 
s. 40 and s. 41 was not binding. The concluslvencu attached 
by s. 6(3) to the notification under s. 6( 1) wu only to thit CX· 
tent that the land was needed for the purposes of a company 
and this was not in dispute. 
Bahu Barlcya Thakur v. TM. Stale of Borrtbay, 11961! 
1 S.C.R. 128 and Pandit Jllandu Lal v. Stat. of Ptmjab, 1961 
2 S. C. R. 459, referred to. 
Per Sarkar, J.-The acquU!tion for the company to set 
up a textile machinery parts factory wiu for some work which 
wu likely to prove'· useful to the public and wu valid. The 
work contemplated in s. 
40( I )(b) was work from which the 
public could in any way derive benefit, whether by dlrm use 
of the work or by enjoyment of tilt fruits of the activities 
carrird on therr or otherwise; it could not be confined to a 
cor.struction for 
philanthropic purpose or to such work u 
could be itself used by the public. The meaning could not be 
restricted by cl. (5) of s 41 aa that would defeat the intention 
of th• statute. The provisions in the agreement about tbe 
terms on which the public would be entitled to use the work 
were inapplicable to cases where the work was auch that the 
public could not use it. 
CzvIL AFP:&LLATB JumsDIOTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 446 of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
July 30, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in 
Special Appeal No. 202 of 1957. 
C. B. Aganrola andNauntt La/, for the Appel-
!ant. 
G. S. Pathak, S. T. Duai and C. P. LGl for 
Repondents Nos. l to 3-
S. T. De8ai, Devemlm Swarup and J. P. Gogal 
for Respondent No. 4. 
1961. 
December 
15. 
The Judgmeni of 
Gajendragadkar, 
Wanchoo, 
Du 
Gupta 
and 
Ayyangar JJ., waa deliver•d by Wanchoo, J, 
Sarkar J., delivered a separatll Judgment. 
WANOHOO, J.-Thia' iB an ap_peal on a oerti1l-
cate granted by the All~hab&d High Court. The 
appellant is the

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