SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS. versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 05-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 126 
SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS. 
v. 
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5509 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Part II, ss. 4 and 6 - Land 
acquisition - For development of infrastructure of city - The 
c project for the development was integrated involving State 
agency as well as private company - Acquisition challenged 
as illegal, malafide and not meant for 'public purpose' - Held: 
Land acquisition proceedings were not illegal, or in colourable 
exercise of power - Government was right in forming an opinion 
0 as to public purpose - Development of infrastructure is legal 
and legitimate 'public purpose' for exercising power of eminent 
~ 
domain - An integrated and indivisible project has to be 
considered as a whole for determining whether it is a larger 
public interest - Involvement of a private company for the 
purpose, would not make the exercise of power of acquisition 
E bad or malafide - Government is the best judge to decide as 
to what constitutes 'public purpose' - The Court, in exercise of 
jurisdiction under Articles 32, 136 or 226 cannot substitute its 
own judgment for the judgment of the Government in this 
regard - Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 32, 136 and 226 
F - Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Development Enabling Act, 
2001. 
Words and Phrases - 'Eminent domain' and 'Public 
purpose' - Meaning of in the context of Land acquisition act, 
G 1894. 
The State Government, in the background of 'World 
Tourism Organization Report' and 'Vision 2020 
Documents' took a policy decision for the development 
of the city of Hyderabad, and decided to establish an 
H 
126 
SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS. v. DISTRICT 127 
> 
COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTT. & ORS. 
Integrated Project to be implemented through its nodal A 
agency Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure and Investment 
' 
. Corporation (APllC) to make the city a world class 
business destination. The State Government acquired 
land for the purported development of 'Financial District 
·1 
and Allied Projects'. It also invoked urgency clause u/s 17 B 
of Land Acquisition Act dispensing with procedure u/s 
5A of the Act. 
) 
Appellants filed writ petitions challenging the 
acquisition on the grounds that the acquisition was not 
for public purpose, but the same was with ma/afide c 
intention to transfer the same to a foreign company and 
:i 
few persons with vested interest; that the action has been 
1 
taken in colourable exercise of power and in violation cf 
~ 
the Act as well as several other statutes. High Court 
~ft( 
upheld the acquisition. However, it held the urgency 0 
clause as illegal and hence directed to proceed by 
following the procedure u/s 5A. Wirt appeals were also 
filed which was dismissed by Division Bench of High 
Court. Hence the present appeals . 
... 
E 
' 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The proceedings initiated by the State for 
acquisition of land under the Lc:md Acquisition Act, 1894 
are not illegal, unlawful, unwarranted, ma/a fide, fraud on 
.... 
statute or taken in colourable exercise of power. On the 
... 
' 
facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the 
Government was right in forming an opinion and reaching 
a satisfaction as to 'public purpose' and in initiating 
proceedings u/s 4 and 6 and in invoking Part II of the Act. 
[Paras 166 and 167] [198 C-F] 
G 
1.2 Section 4 of the Act expressly authorizes the 
appropriate Government to issue preliminary notification 
for acquisition of land likely to be needed for any public 
purpose or 'for a company'. Likewise, Section 6 declares 
that when the appropriate Government is satisfied that a H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A particular land is needed for a public puipose or 'for a 
company', a declaration shall be made to that effect. It is 
thus clear that appropriate Government may acquire land 
if such land is needed for any public purpose or 'for a 
company'. If it is so, acquisition will be governed by Part 
B II of the Act and the procedure laid down in the said Part 
has to be followed. Part VII, on the other hand, deals with 
acquisition of land for companies. [Para 106] [176-C-E] 
Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) 
and Ors., 1961 (1) SCR 128; Pandit Jhandulal and Ors. v. 
C State of Punjab and Ors. 1961 (2) SCR 459; R.L. Arora (I) v. 
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1962 Supp (2) SCR 149;

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