LexSHYAM BEHARI AND 0THERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 Hori CliaNn K111'11fl' Y. Stol• of Biliar Ga/•ndragadkor C.I. JNI SUPREME COURT REPORTS [rg64J unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely on the con- fession of a co-accused person, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists the accus- ed person and compels the Court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him, and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. That is precisely what has happened in these appeals. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the two appellants Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam are set aside and the accused are ordered to be acquitted. Appeals allowed. SHY AM BEHAR! AND 01HERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) Land Acquisition-Who/• comp•nsation to b• paid by th• company- No declaration that the land wa.r needed for a compani-Yalidlty- . T.st- Land Acquisition Act, (I of 1894), ss. 4, 6(1). The Government issued a notification on December 3, 1960 under 1. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act stating that the land described in the anncxure to the notification was required for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of buildings for god.owns and administrative office. The appellants challenged the validity 'of the notification in the High Court contending that the notification under s. 6 of the Act did not describe the land to be acquired with sufficient particularity and that although the notification mentioned that the land was required for a public purpoSe, in fact it was required for a company, which was entirely different from Government and was therefore invalid. Soon after the writ petition Was filed, the State Government issued a fresh notification on April 19, 1961 mainly under s. 17(1) read withs. 17(4) of the Act The notiftc:a- tion stated that it was declared under 1. 6 of the Act that tho land wu required for a public purpo5e, namely, "for the Premier Refractory Fae-. tory and work connected therewith." At the time of beari111 of the writ petition in the High Court, it was urged on behalf of the appellants that llotb the notifications nndu 1. 6 of the December 3, 1960 lllld AprD I,, 6 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1961 were invalid became the acquisition was not for a public purpose IJU as stated therein; in fact it was for a company which was entirely diff• . rent from Government. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and Slayam ••llM held that the notifications under s. 6 must in substance and in law be Stall of" M""1qs deemed to be for acquisition of land for a company in the present case. Prml~61t Held: Where the entire compensation is to be paid by a company, the notification under s. 6 must contain a declaration that the land is needed for a company. No notification under s. 6 can be made where the entire compensation is to be paid by a company declaring that the acquisition is for a public purpose, for, such a declaration requires that either wholly or in part, compensation must come out of public revenue1 or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Pandit Jhandu Lal v. State of Puniab, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 459, followed. In the present case, the whole compensation was to be paid by th• company, therefore the notification under s. 6 had to declare that the land was needed for a company. There was nothing in either of the two notifications of December 3, 1960 and April 19, 1961 to show that thl land was needed for a company, therefore they were invalid in view of lhe proviso to s. 6 (I ) of the Act and all proceedings following on 1uc:h notifications would be of no effect under the Act. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 8, 1961, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 81 of 1961. Naunit Lal, for the a'?pellant. l. N. Shroff, for respondents Nos. 1-4. Rajani Patel and l. N. Shroff, for the Intervener. February 3, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by W ANCHOO J .-This is an appeal by special leave 8gainst the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of a notification issued under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, No. I of 1894 (hereinafter referred to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.