A
B
SUBH~SHGIR KHUSHALGIR GOSA VI AND ORS.
v.
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.
MARCH 18, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sectio114(1).
La11d Acquisition-Notification-Validity of
C
Maharas/w·a State-Land situated in area reserved for residential Plll'
pose-Acquisition for extension of bus stand a11d depot-Writ-C/10//enge to
acquisition-Dismissal by High Court-lnte1fere11ce by Supreme Cowt held
not called fo1-Acquisition of la11d being in public interest exercise of power
by State held not arbitr01y-Co11tention that acquisition is not in public
D interest because of congestion-Rejectio11 of
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 : Section 54 Land
acquisition-Cliange of use-Notification for.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5192 of
E 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.94 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 4190 of 1994.
U.R. Lalit and Uday U. Lalit for the Appellant.
F
R.S. Hegde, K.R. Nagara.ja, AM. Khanwilkar, R.B. Masodkar and
G
D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. Heard both the parties.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order made on November
7, 1994 in W.P. No. 4190 of 1994 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court dismissing the writ petition in limine. It related to the challenge to the
notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short, the 'Act') acquiring the land in question for extension of S.T. Bus stand
H and depot in Pandharpur in Maharashtra State. It is no doubt true Pandhar-
520
S.K. GOSAV!v. SPL LAND ACQN. OFFICER
521
pur is one of the ancient and renowned temple town of Lord Vithoba to A
which all the devotees from several parts of the States, in particular of Kar-
nataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra congregate particularly in Ashad-
hamas. It is the case of the appellant that due to traffic congestion it would
not be feasible to extend the existing S.T. Bus stand and the depot in the
congested area which gets reflected from the orders passed by the
municipality, the recommendation made by the District Collector and also B
the resolutions passed by the municipality in that behalf. It is also the case of
the appellant that under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Plan-
ning Act, 1966 unless the user is changed by proper notification, the land
which is reserved for residential purpose cannot be used for commercial
purpose. Therefore, the acquisition in question is bad in law.
The only question is : whether the impugned notification is bad in
law ? Extension of the bus stand obviously is a public purpose and,
therefore, it per se cannot be said to be bad in law. It is true as pointed
c
out by the Collector and the representation dated August 8, 1986 made in
that behalf by some people that there is congestion and acquisition is not D
in public interest. But it is for the Government to take a decision and it is
not for the Court to decide as to which place is more convenient. Since the
Government has taken a decision that acquiring the land for extension of
the bus stand a.nd bus depot is in the public interest, it cannot be said that
the exercise of the power is arbitrary.
It is contended by Shri U.R. Lalit, learned senior counsel that when
large congregation of lakhs of people come thronging the temple town of
Lord Vithoba, instead of relieving the congestion by shifting the existing
bus stand bus depot to some place in the out-skirts of city, extension itself
will add to the congregati'on. Though the argument may be plausible and
attractive, we cannot go into that question. It is for the Government to take
a decision and it is not for this Court to give any finding in that behalf. The
Government did take contra decision. It is equally true that the area was
reserved for residential purpose. It is not the case that they are establishing
E
F
the bus stand in the residential area for the first time. In fact bus stand is
already existing and acquisition was only for extension of the existing bus G
stand. Under these circumstances, we do not find that there is any justifica-
tion warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed. H
Lex