LexSMT. SOMAVANTI AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
1962
ta.ken by the Madras High Court and we see no
w,,1 Ramnu
reason to diffor from it. Therefore the challenge
EZ..uio DU1ritu1;.n
!'<> the validity of the Act on the g~ound that its
(',.Lid.
IDlporta.nt provisions contained in section 5 offend
.sw. .j·Mab"'
against Art. 31 (2) must be rejected. That being
-
. our view, we must held that the High Court was
f1oj•n4ro~alk•J. right in rejeoting both the writ petitions filed by
the l!'Ppellant. Op that view, it is unnecessary to
oons1der whether appellant would have been entitled
to get the relief of poBBession or mesue profits whioh
it purported to claim by its two petitions.
Jl4y 2.
The appeals accordingly fail and are di.amilllled
with costs.
One set of hearing fees.
Appeals di.smisst,tl.
SMT. SOMAVANTI A~D OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
(And Conneote.d Petitions)
lB. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SuBBA. R.t.o, N. RA.J.t.GOP.ALA.
AYYA.NGA..R, J. R. MuoBOLXA.B and
T. L. VKN.K.A.TA..RA.JU. .AIYA.B, JJ .)
Land Acqu;.ifiqn....-Puhlic purpo .. --Qovemmt>&I tltdaration
l .
aa lo public purpo-1/ juaU<:iable-"ComlmitJO ellid•-"
"Concluafoe proof", Meaning of-Compen11alio..-~,,,.,.1'•
cofllribution of w•t-1/ •hould be aublllanlial-l..dia11 Et1i<UllU
Acl 1872 (I of 1872), u. J, 4-Land Acquiaition Act, 1894
(I~! 1894), ••· 4, 6A, 6-Conatilmion of lnrlia, Art. 14.
In February, 1961, the petitioners purchucd over si:r
acres of land situate in the State of Punjab for a 1um of
Its. 4,50,000 and claim to have done so for the purpo.sc of
establishing a paper mill. The sixth respondent, private
limited company, which had a licence from the Govcrn~ent
of India for 1tarting a factory for the manufacture of vanoua
'
2 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.775
ranges of refrigeration compressors and ancillary equipment,
requeoted the State of Punjab for the allotment of an ·appro·
priate site for the location of the fattory,
Tn the official
Gazette of August 25, 1961, was published a notification of the
.Governor of Punjab dated August 18, 1961, unders~ 4ofthe
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the effect that the land belong·
ing to the P'titioners was likely to be needed by the Govern-
ment at public expeoses for a public purpose, namely, for
setting up a factory for manufacturing various ranges of
refrigeration
compressors and ancillary equipment.
The
Govrrnment directed that action under s. 17 of tho Act shall
be taken because there was uriency and that the provisions of
s. 5A shall not apply to the acquisition. In the same Gazette
another notification under s. 6 of the Act dated August 19,
1961, was published to the effect that the Governor of Punjab
was satisfied that the land was.required by the Government at
public expense for the said purpose. The notification provide
for the immediate taking of possession of the land under
the provisions of s. 17 (2) (c} of the Act. On September 29,
1961, the Government of Punjab sanctioned an expense of
Rs. 100 for the purpose of acquisition of the land. The peti·
tioners filed an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution
of India challenging the legality of the action taken by the
Government on the grounds, inter alia, (I} that the acquisition
was nqt for a public purpose either under s. 4 ors. 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act; (2) that the land was in reality being
acquired for the benefit of t]le sixth respondent and that the
action of the Government amounted to discrimination against
the petitioners and violated. Art. 14 of the Contitution of
India; (3} that the alleged contribution of Rs. I QO made by
the Government was a colourable exercise of pnwer inasmuch
as the amount was so unsubstantial sum compared to the value
of the property that it could not raise an inference of Govern.
ment participation in the proposed activity; and (4) that foe
notifications under ss. 4 and 6 could riot have been made
simultaneously and were, therefore, without efficacy.
Helil. (per Sinha, C. ]., Rajagopala Ayyangar, Mudhol·
kar and V~nkatarama· Aiyar, JJ.), (l} that the declaration
made by the Government in the notification under s. 6 (I) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the land was required
for a public purpose, was made conclusive by sub-s. 3 of s. 6
and that it was not open to a court to go behind it and try to
satisfy itself whether in fact the acquisition was for a public
purpose.
Whether in a particular case the purpose for which Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.