LexSHYAM NANDAN PRASAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHY AM NANDAN PRASAD AND ORS. A v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. AUGUST 13, 1993 (A.M. AHMADI AND MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act-Section 4(as applicable to Bihar)-Secn·ons 3(c), SA, 6, 35, 38-Public Pwpose-Scope of-Obligation of the Collector and nature of his functions---Scope of Section 55 of the Act. Acquisition of land for companies-Sections 39 and 40 of the Act-Scope of-Private Company vis a vis Govenunent Companr-Distinc- tive features-Relevance of the status of society. c TI1e appellants are members of Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society, floated by members of Bihar Finance D Service who were landless and did not own residential plot or house in the city of Patna, but its membership was statedly open to everyone who was similarly landless. In 1973 the society put up a proposal for ac<1uisition of 59.95 acres of land, upon which the State Government issued notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act inviting objections E u/s SA. This was followed after legal formalities, by notification u/s 6 of the Act in respect of the total land except 5 acres set apart for allotment to persons likely to be disturbed. The High Court at Patna quashed the declaration u/s 6 of the Act and remitted the matter to the Government for reconsideration : F Whether the impugned action was in violation of section SA of the Act. The matter came up in appeal before this Court. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, this court HELD : The compliance of Section SA is mandatory. And affording of opportunity of being heard to the objector is a must. [539-E] Sh1i Mandir Sita Ramji v. Lt. Govemor of Delhi and others, (1975] G 4 SCC 298 and Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and another v. The H 533 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Municipal C01poration of the City of Alunedabad and another, [1976] 3 sec 719, referred to. The provisions of Section SA embody a just and wholesome principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be, B acquir~d should have the occasion to persuade the anthorities concerned that his property be not touched for acquisition - the right is absolute, unless the appropriate government chooses tu dispense with its ap- plicability under tbe law. [539-F] It is plain from the language of section 41 that unless the proposed C acquisition is ·of the three kinds mentioned in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) of Section 40 and is found to be needed for one or the other of these purposes, neither is the appointed officer, to whom the enquiry is entrusted, empowered to verdict in fuvour of a company and nor is the government without recording such satisfaction expected to give consent. D The agreement is then required under Section 42 of the Act to be published in the official Gazette as soon as may be after execution and thereupon have the same effect as if it had formed the part of the Act. The right of the public to use the work being pervasive in the considera- tion of and acceptance of report by the Government, signified by consent, E goes to show the dominant purpose of public utility governing the deliberation and decision. [542-C-E] Section 44B distinguishes between a private company and Govern- ment company. However, since the society is neither a Government F company nor a private con1pany the impediment of Section 44B towards confining the choice of acquisition for private company for one purpose is out, the Society as a public company would require to satisfy that it requires the land for any of the purposes mentioned in clauses (a), (aa) and (b) before it can obtain consent of appropriate Govern- G ment. However, in order to approach the Government with a request for acqnisition the company has to satisfy the provisions of Rule 4, while a Land Acquisition Committee is constituted under Rule 3 ibid. Rule 4 is mandatory and essential to be complied with. [542-F; 543-D, F; 545-H] H State of Gujarat and another v. Patel Chatwbhai Nanibhai and S.N. PR/\SAD 1'. STATE OF BIH/\R 53.'i others, [1975] I SCC SX3; State of Gujarat and othen· v, Am/Ja!a/ A Haidcrbhai and others, [1976] 3 SCC 495 (499) and Ge11cra/ Govt. Sen•ants Cooperative Hous;ng Sodety Ltd. a11d others v. Sh. Wahab Uddin a11d others, [1981] 2 sec 352, relied on. The acquisition of land for a company is in substance for a public purpose as all those activities mentioned in Section 40 serve the public pur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.