STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURDIAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 25-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

10 71 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
A 
v. 
GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. 
j · 
October 25, 1979 
~,,,! 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER & R. S. PATHAK, .TJ.] 
B 
. Land .Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894), Ss 4, SA, 6 and 17-Land ac~uisi­
~iOn-lligh Court held state action malafide-same land acquired later u11d~r 
emergency po'wer dispensing with statutory enquiry-Acquisition-Validity of. 
Land llcqufai:ion proceedings-Allegation by land 
owner 
that 
statutory 
power rnisused to satisfy personal ends of an individual with political influence 
C 
-N9 al1£1nzpt to contradict allegation despite opportunity being afiorded-
ma/afides-If p1aved. 
In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone foe 
it was laid. 
This spot belonged to a cousin of Respond'ent No. 22, an ex.-
Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in 
favour of the lands of Respo.ndents Nos. 1 to 21, which were notified l'n 197L 
The landowners resisted and successfully 
impeached the 
acquisition on the 
ground ,of n1ala [ides before the High Court. 
After a. Jong interval, the State initiated acquisition proceedings ln respect 
of the sam'e land a second time, invoking the emergency powers under Section 
17 of the Land Acquisition Act. 
The Respondents Nos. 1 to 21 a95ailed the acquisition before the High 
Court on the ground that the statutory power to acquire land had been misused 
to satisfy the personal ends of Respondent No. 22 and that the acquisition was 
not for a legitima.te statutory purpose. 
The High Court stiuck down the 
'declaration', and invalidated the acquisition. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the State, 
HELD: 
" 
Krishna Iyer, 1.) 
· 
It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious 
r and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. 
Hearing him 
e deprivjng him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, an..1 
denial of tJ1is administrative fairness is constitutional anathema 
except fnr 
gnod reasons.. Save in rea1 urgency where public interest does not brook even 
the minimum time needed to give a he&ring, land acquisition authorities ~hould 
not, having regard to Articles 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under S. 17 of the 
Land Acquisition Act. 
[1078H-1079B] 
In the instant case a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly 
exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, 
makes a travesty of emergency 
power. 
[ l079B] 
, 
' 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 
2. The power to select land for acquisition proceedings is left to the res-
ponsible discretion of Government under the Act, subject to 
Articfes 14, 19 
ood 31 (then). The Court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise 
its hand again.st what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative 
action is the property of the Executive and judicial circumspection keeps 'ilie 
court lock-jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique ends!'• 
otherwise void on well-established grounds. [1075 F-G] 
\ 
'" 
3. Legal n1alice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate . t 
. 
the popular concept of personal vice. 
Bad faith which invalidates the ex.er .t.Se 
of po\ver--son1etimes, called ~olourable exercise or fraud on power and of~ 
tim'es overlaps n1otives, passions, and satisfoctions-is the attainment of ends 
beyond the 5anctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining 
a legitimate goal. 
If the use of the powef is for the fulfilment of a legal . 
object the actuation or catalysation by mc:.lice is- not l'egicidal. 
Tue action is 
bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which 
the power is entrusted, goaded by 'extraneous considerations, good or bad, bul 
irrelevant to the entrustment. 
\Vhen the cus~odian of po\ver is inftuenceJ in 
its exercise by considerations outsid'e those for promotion of which the power 
is vested, the court ca11s it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. 
[1075H-1076C] 
, 
4. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide tor the 
end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and em-
braces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some obfect which 
is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be matll:e-laden 
or even benign. If the purpose i11 corrupt the resultant act is bad. 
If consi-
derations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter

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