LexRAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013] 7 S.C.R. 192 RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4824 of 2013) JULY 01, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: ss. 4 and 6 - Acquisition of land by State Government for setting up of Railway complex - 'Public purpose' - Held: Under ss. 4 and 6, it is the "appropriate Government" which is to be satisfied about the 'public purpose' for which the land 0 is to be acquired and which is vested with the responsibilities contemplated u/ss. 4 and 6 - 'Public purpose' may be relatable to (i) Union! Central Government, or (ii) State Government or (iii) a "general public purpose", which is neither exclusively relatable to Central Government nor fully E relatable to State Government, but furlhers a common public purpose relatable both to a Union and a State cause. ss. 3(ee), 4, and 6 - "Appropriate Government" - Held: If the purpose of acquisition is exclusively for the Union, then Union/Central Government will have exclusive jurisdiction to F acquire the land - If the purpose of acquisition is exclusively for a State, or for "a general public purpose", then the State Government concerned will have the exclusive jurisdiction to acquire the land - In the instant case, though the land was acquired for Railway complex, but additionally the purpose of G acquisition would benefit the State generally, as better transporlation facilities would meet the expectations of public and private entities having a nexus with the State and, as such, the purpose for acquisition can certainly be described as "a general public purpose" - Therefore, the State H 192 RAJENDRA NAGAR ADARSH GRAH NIRMAN 193 SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Government had jurisdiction to acquire the land because it A duly satisfied the requirement of the term 'appropriate Government' refe"ed to in ss. 4 and 6 - While acquiring the land of appellants, State Government has proceeded in due course of Jaw - As such, appellants cannot be stated to have been deprived of their lands/property, without the authority of B law and there has been no violation of appellants' right under Art. 300A of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 300A.. The Railways requested the State Government of C Rajasthan, to provide land "free of cost" for setting up North-Western Railway Zone Complex at Jaipur. It was emphasized by the Union Minister for Railways, that the setting up of the new Railway Zone at Jaipur, would improve train services to and within the State of Rajasthan, and thereby, meet the expectations of public D and private entities, of the area. Ultimately, the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a notification u/s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicating the State Government's desire to acquire 15.50 hectares of land situated in the revenue estate of two E villages of district Jaipur. The said notification u/s. 4, was published on 6.9.1997. The State Government on 13.1.1999 notified its declaration u/s. 6 of the Acquisition Act, which was published in the State Government gazette dated 21.1.1999. On 21.3.2001, the Land F Acquisition Officer passed an award, determining the compens~tion payable to land owners. The instant appeals arose out of the proceedings challenging the acquisition by the State Government. The sum and substance of the contentions raised on G behalf of the appellants was that since the land was acquired for setting up a new Railway Zone, the "appropriate Government", as defined in s.3(ee) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was only the Central Government which could have issued the s. 4 notification H 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A dated 19.8.1997, as also the s. 6 declaration dated 13.1.1999, but the said notification and declaration were issued by the Government of Rajasthan; that the "appropriate Government" as contemplated u/ss. 16, 17(1), 17(2), 31(3), 40 and 49 could only have been the B Central Government; and that the nomination of the 'Collector' for all purposes relating to the acquisition and to carry out the functions contemplated u/ss ss. 5, 5-A, 7, 11, 12, 13, 13-A and 14 etc., could only have been ordered by the Central Government and not by the State c Government and, therefore, the nomination of the Collector made by the State Government was clearly beyond the jurisdi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.