THE COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR. versus NARRA VENKATESWARLU AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 764 · Decided: 28-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
THE COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR. 
v. 
NARRA VENKATESWARLU AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1896-Section-4( 1)-Public purpose-Acquisi-
tion of land only for weaker sections of society-Constitutes a 'public purpose'. 
C 
A notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was 
quashed by a Single Judge in writ proceedings on the ground of colourable 
exercise of power by the authorities. On appeal, the Divison Bench af-
firmed the order on the ground of non-application of mind by the Collector 
himself, since the acquisition was made by him on the recommendation 
made by the Government and further that the administrative instructions 
D for obtaining prior permission from the Government for making the award 
when the value exceeds Rs. 20,000 per acre were not obtained. These 
appeals by special leave had been filed against the judgment of the High 
Court. 
E 
The appellant contended that the notification validly issued by the 
Collector who is the competent authority to issue notification u/s 4(1) of 
the Act, cannot be whittled down by the non-consideration of the ad-
ministrative instructions issued by the Government nor absence of prior 
approval is a ground to d~clare the valid notification as jnvalid one. 
F 
The respondents contended that attempts were made by the Sar-
panch to get the property by successive litigations and that the Collector 
in a cryptic order had mentioned that the land could be acquired for 
weaker sections without any proposal for acquiring the land for weaker 
sections and therefore, exercise of power u/s 4(1) was a colourable exercise 
G of power vested in the Collector. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act, 
1896, was published by the Collector for acquiring the land for the weaker 
H sections. The Collector bad been empowered to acquire the land for the 
764 
-· 
.. 
COLLECTOR, ONGOLE v. NARRA VENKATESWARLU 
765 
weaker sections, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Initially there A 
was an attempt by the Sarpanch to have the land acquired for Housing Co-
operative Society. Since the members of the Cooperative society belonged 
to the forward sections of the society, the land could not be acquired. The 
Colle~tor also did not accede to that request. The Tahsildar suggested to 
acquire some another land but that was not accepted by the Joint Collector. B 
The file had gone to the Collector and ultimately the Government had 
accepted the proposal to acquire the land in question for the weaker sec-
tions. Some of the persons to whom the allotment was to be made belonged 
to the forward sections of the society but that does not take away the initial 
exercise of the power by the Collector, who is the competent authority to 
exercise the power under s. 4(1) of the Act. The notification does indicate c 
that the land was acquired for public purpose, namely, providing houses to 
the weaker sections of the society . Even the recommendations made by the 
Government after the protracted litigation were for acquiring the land for 
weaker sections. Thus the acquisition being only for the weaker sections of 
the society, it constitutes a "public purpose" as defined under the Act by 
D 
virtue of the local amendment made to s. 17(1) of the Act. [767-D-G] 
1.2. The collector had formed the opinion that the land was required 
for public purpose, namely, providing houses to the weaker sections of the 
society. The question of non-application of mind did not arise. After 
consideration of the material before the Collector, he formed the opinion E 
that the land was required for public purpose. The direction of the Govern-
ment was after protracted litigation and to avoid further litigation, 
Government had directed to acquire the land. It would not mean that the 
Collector had abdicated his power under s.4(1). The Government had 
issued instructions for obtaining prior permission of the. Government, if F 
the value of the land was more than Rs. 20,000 per acre, the prior 
permission of the Government in that behalf is necessary. The administra-
tive instructions, no doubt, bind the subordinates but the violation thereof 
does not con~titute an infirmity in the acquisition of the land itself. The 
Government could take appropriate disciplinary action against the offi-
cials but it did not constitute infirmity in the valid exercise of the power G 
under s.4(1) and declarati

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