RAMJI VEERJI PATEL & ORS. versus REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 821 · Decided: 02-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 821 
RAMJI VEERJI PATEL & ORS. 
v. 
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2003} 
NOVEMBER 2, 2011 
[R.M. LODHA AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4(1) and 6 - Land 
acquisition for expansion of depot of Roadways Corporation 
A 
B· 
- Notification uls .. 4(1) that land belonging to appellants was 
C 
needed for public purpose -
Objections raised by the 
appellants that they had incurred expenditure in raising the 
. level of the land; raised the building and installed a saw mill 
·and their family was solely dependant upon the income from 
.· 
the saw mill; and alternative land were available for expansion 
D 
of the depot - Objections considered by the Government but 
not convinced by the same - Issuance of declaration u/s. 6 -
Writ petition challenging the notification and declaration -
Dismissed by the High Court - Appeal also dismissed - On 
appeal, held: Land suggested by the appellants was not found 
E 
to be equally suitable - Government gave reasons as to why 
the appellants',, land was found to be more suitable for 
expansion of the depot - Appellants land is adjacent· to the 
existing depot of the Corporation having easy access to the 
main road - Thus, the decision taken by the Government is 
F 
not vitiated by any errot of law nor it is irrational or founded 
on the extraneous reasons - Corporation or its successor not 
being a 'company' as defined in s. 3(e), Part VII of the Act is 
not applicable and as such procedure contemplated in Part 
VII having not followed, it cannot be said that acquisition is 
G 
bad in law - No doubt appellants have been put to hardship 
by compulsory acquisition of their land, they can suitably 
compensated - The said litigation has taken about 22 years 
and public purpose has been stalled for the said period -
821 
H 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Nothing should be done that would result in frustrating the 
acquisition of land completed long back by following the 
procedure under the Act and possession taken in 2001, by 
giving full opportunity to the appellants u/s. 5-A - Thus, not a 
case fit for exercise of power under Article 142 - Constitution 
B of India, 1950 - Article 142. 
Appellants and their family members purchased 
agricultural land. They incurred expenditure in raising the 
level of the land and made improvements; raised the 
building and installed a saw mill. The Roadways 
C Corporation made a requisition for making available land 
for expansion of their depot for a workshop. The State 
Government issued a notification under Section 4(1) of 
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that the land of the 
appellant's was needed for the public purpose. The said 
D notification was also published. The appellants filed 
objections. before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) 
that the other lands behind the existing depot of the 
Corporation were available and could be used for the 
purpose of expansion of the depot; and that their family 
E was dependant upon the income from the saw mill 
existing on the land and by compulsory acquisition of 
their land, they would be deprived of the sole means of 
livelihood. The RDO considered the objections and 
submitted his report to the Government. Meanwhile, the 
F appellants sent a representation to the Government that 
the land just behind the existing depot which belonged 
to TELC was advertised for sale and, therefore, instead 
of resorting to the compulsory acquisition of the 
appellants' land, the land of TELC may be acquired. The 
G Government was not convinced by the objections and 
issued a declaration under Section 6 and the same was 
published in the Gazette as also by other modes. The 
appellants filed a writ petition challenging the notification 
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The Single 
H Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The 
RAMJI VEERJI PATEL & ORS. v. REVENUE 
823 
DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ORS. 
appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellants 
A 
filed the instant appeals. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The submission that the land ~elonging 
to the TELC is suitable as that land is situated just behind 
B 
the existing depot; the existing depot has already access 
to the main road from Chidambaram to Cuddalore and on 
acquisition of the land of TELC, the acquired land too 
would have access to the main road through the existing 
depot of the Corporation, thus, the suita

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