LexSCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNION versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNION A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. MAY 9, 1996 [i<.. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 3(d), 4(1), 5A, 6-Acquisition of land on which a work shop was situated for expansion of Dockyard for defence purposes-Workers' Union C challenging Notification under s. 4(1) and declaration published under s. 6 as also the award claiming themselves to be 'person interested'-Held, a person entitled to compensation or by implication bound by award of com- pensation or excess conzpensation is an interested person-Petitioner Union is not a person interested-Notice and hearing of it u/s. 5A(2) , is not D mandatory-Scope of inquiry u/s. 5A is whether the land sought to be acquired is needed for a public purpose and whether the land is suitable for the purpose or is an arable land-Expansion of dockyard for defence purpose is'public purpose-T7ie very object of compulsory acquisition is in exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State-So long as public purpose subsists exercise of power of eminent domain cannot be questioned-Publication of E declaration u/s. 6 is conclusive.evidence of public purpose-Claims for a"ears of salary of employees and for their rehabilitation are not gennane for disposal of this case. Words and Phrases: 'Eminent domain', 'person interested' and 'public p!irpose'-£xplained. · F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11043 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.96 of the Bombay High G Court in A. No. 74/91 in W.P. No. 3305/90, 3:308/89. Ms. I11dira Jaisingh, Ms. Arnita Shenoy and Sanjay Parikh for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 647 H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A We have heard Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on May 17, 1988 acquiring land over which the workshop was situated for public purpose, namely for the expansion of dockyard for defence purpose. The petitioner B had challenged the validity of the said notification and the Jeclaration published under Section 6 on May 25, 1989 on diverse grounds. Sub- sequently, the award came to be passed on January 15, 1991 and the same also came to be challenged by the petitioner-Union. The main controversy raised by the petitioner is that they are the 'persons interested' within the meaning of Section 3( d) of the Act and in conducting enquiry under C Section 5(A), the Land Acquisition Officer had not given any notice under sub-section (2) of Section SA. Issuance of notice and hearing of it is mandatory and the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement vitiates the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. We find no force in the contention. D The only scope of the enquiry under Section SA is whether the land sought to be acquired is needed for a public purpose and whether the land is suitable for the purpose or is an arable land. Besides these questions, the inter se claim of the employer and the workmen of payment of wages and extent thereof are alien to the enquiry, sub-section (3) of Section SA E makes the scope beyond pale of doubt. If the interested person is entitled to compensation or by implication bound by award of compensation or excess compensation is an interested person. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to be persons interested for the purpose of an enquiry under Section SA. F Obvious, therefore, the petitioners have contended that the acquisi- tion is not for a public purpose; it is a ma/a fide acquisition and a vague public purpose of defence and so acquisition is not valid in law. Precedents have been copiously cited in the High Court in that behalf. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench elaborately considered them and held G that acquisition for defence purpose is a public purpose. Rodrigue case to Tamil Nadu Housi11g Board case settled the controversy holding that acquisition for housing development is not a vague purpose. Eitpansion of dockyard for defence purpose is a public purpose. Publication of declara- tior. under section 6 accords conclusiveness to public purpose. It is for the H appropriate Government to take a decision whether a particular land is SCINDIA EMPLOYEES UNION v. STATE 649 ->.- needed for a public purpose or not and the C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.