9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Public Purpose of Land Acquisition 2. Applicability of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act 3. Ownership of Mines and Minerals 4. Legality of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 5. Right to Compensation for Minerals Detailed Analysis Public Purpose of Land Acquisition The first issue was whether the land acquisition was for a public purpose. The appellant argued that the limestone extracted was used for manufacturing cement sold for profit, which should not be considered a public purpose. The court held that the declaration by the State Government under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act that the land was required for a public purpose is conclusive under Section 6(3). The court referenced the case of Smt. Somavanti v. The State of Punjab, asserting that it is the Government's satisfaction that determines the public purpose, and such a declaration is final unless it is a colorable exercise of power. The court found no evidence of colorable exercise of power and thus rejected the appellant's argument. Applicability of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act The second issue was whether the land in question was waste or arable land, which is a prerequisite for applying Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The court examined the Collector's Inspection Note, which described the land as forest land with a large number of trees, and concluded that it was neither waste nor arable land. The court defined "arable land" as land used mainly for ploughing and raising crops and "waste land" as barren land with little or no vegetation. The court held that the State Government had no authority to direct the Collector to take possession under Section 17(1) of the Act, as the land did not meet these criteria. Consequently, the notification under Section 17(1) was deemed ultra vires. Ownership of Mines and Minerals The third issue was whether the appellant had sub-soil and mineral rights in the land. The court reviewed historical documents, including Sanads from 1781 and 1803, which granted the land to the appellant's ancestors with all rights. The court concluded that the grants included mineral rights as there was no reservation of these rights in favor of the Government. The court cited various judicial precedents and regulations, such as Regulation VIII of 1793 and Regulation I of 1795, to support the view that zamindars were recognized as proprietors of the soil, including sub-soil minerals. The court overruled the High Court's decision on this aspect, affirming the appellant's ownership of the minerals. Legality of Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act The fourth issue was the legality of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The court held that the notification under Section 4 was illegal because the land was not waste or arable, and thus the State Government had no jurisdiction to apply Section 17(1) and 17(4). The court further held that the notification under Section 6 was ultra vires for the same reasons. The court emphasized that the High Court is entitled to determine the correctness of the preliminary finding of fact upon which the jurisdiction of the State Government depends. Right to Compensation for Minerals The fifth issue was the appellant's entitlement to compensation for the minerals. The court held that since the appellant was the owner of the minerals, he was entitled to compensation for them. The court referenced various documents and subordinate leases that showed the appellant's continuous enjoyment of mineral rights. The court dismissed the respondents' reference to the Mirzapur Stone Mahal Act, stating that it did not affect the appellant's right to sub-soil minerals. Conclusion The court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, quashing the notifications dated October 4, 1950, and October 12, 1950, and all subsequent proceedings, including the award dated January 7, 1952, and the reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act. However, the court rejected the appellant's claim for restoration of possession due to the valid vesting of the intermediary interest in the State by notifications under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
|
