RAJA ANAND BRAHMA SHAH versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 16-09-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.A 
·C 
:£ 
RAJA ANA~D BRAHMA SHAH 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
September 16, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SIJIBI, 
V. RAMASWAMI A'.ND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.j 
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), ss. 4, SA, 6, 17(1) and (4)-
Declaratlon that land acquired for /tUblic purpose-When can be chal-
lenged-"Arab/e and waste land", what WC-Power of Government under 
s. 11(4)-When liable to .challenge-Grantee of land-Right' to minerals 
and subsoil rights. 
. 
In !9SO, the State Government issued a notification under s. 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that the appellant's land was need-
ed for the public purpose of limestone quarrying. It was also notified that 
the case was one of urgency and that under s. 17 ( 4) the provisions of 
s. SA would not apply to \he land. After the notification under s. 6 was 
issued, the Collector was ordered under s. 17 (I) 
to take possession of 
the arable and waste land. The Collector took possession ·of the appellant's 
land. The limestone quarried from the land was utilized by the Government 
for producing cement, the cement produced was used in the construction 
of a darn, and when it was sold for profit, 
the profit formed part of 
the general revenues of the State. The acquisition proceedings were chal-
lenged by a writ petition on the grounds~, that : ( i) the acquisition was not 
for a public purpose, because, the cement Was sold for profir; (ii) the 
application of s. 17 (I) and ( 4) to the land was illegal since it was neither 
waste nor arable; and (iii) the appellant was entitled to compensation for 
Sllb-soil mines and minerals. The High Court dismissed the, petition. 
In appeal, 
HELD: (i) The appellant's argument must be rejected as .he was not 
·able to show that the action of the Government in issuing the notification 
under s. 6 was a colourable exercise of power. [377 C-D] 
~I 
The declaration of the Government under s. 6(1) that the land was 
needed for a public putpose would be final and conclusive, except when 
there was a colourable exercise of the power by the Government in that 
the purpose was not a public purpose, but a p·rivate purpose or no purpose 
at all. 
(376 HJ 
G 
H 
Smt. Somavanti v. The State of Punjab, [1963] 2_ S.C.R. 774, followed. 
· fthe question whether production of cement as a commercial enter-
prise is a public purpose within the meaning of the Act was left open. 
1377 B-CJ 
(ii) (a) The direction of the State Government under s. 17(1), and 
the action of the Collector in taking possession of the land under that sub-
~ection were ultra vires, because, the acquired land was forest land covered 
with a large number of trees, and not "arable or waste land." [380 Fl 
In the context of s. 17(1) the expression "arable land'' must be- con-
strued to mean "lands which are· mainly used for ploughing and for raising 
crops," and the expression "waste land" would mean "land which is UDftt 
373 
374 
SUPREME COURT 
REPORTS 
(1967] l S.C.R. 
for cultivation or habitation, desolate and barren land with little or no 
A 
vegetation thereon." The jurisdiction of the State Government depends upon 
the condition imposed by s. 17 (I). and by wrongly deciding the character 
of the land the State Government cannot give itself jurisdiction to give a 
direction to the Collector to take possession of it. Where the jurisdiction 
of an administrative authority depends upon a preliminary finding of fact, 
the High Court is entitled in a proceeding for the issue of a writ of cmlo-
rari to determine, upon its independent judgment,, whether or not that 
B 
finding of fact is correct. [380 A·E] 
( b) The order of the State Government under 1. 17 ( '4) that the pre>-
visions of s. SA were not applicable to the land was illegal, and therefore, 
the notification of the Slate Government under s. 6 was ultra viru, and all 
proceedings taken by the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to it wero 
without jurisdiction. 
[381 F; 383 A-Bl 
E\'en though the power of the Stato Government has been formulated 
C 
under s. 17(4) in subjective terms, the expression of opinion of the State 
Government can be challenged as ultra vires in a court of law if it could 
be shown that the Sla(e Government never applied its mind to the matter, 
or, that the action of the State Government was ma/a fide. 
Therefore, 
when the acquired land was not actually waste or arable land. but 
the 
State Government formed the opinion that the. provisions of s. 17 (I) were 
app

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