1966 (9) TMI 135 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

1. Whether the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was liable to be quashed on the grounds that the acquisition was not for a public purpose.

2. Whether the State Government had jurisdiction to apply the provisions of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act to the land in dispute, specifically whether the land was "waste or arable" as required for such application.

3. Whether the appellant had sub-soil and mineral rights in the land and was entitled to compensation for the minerals, including limestone, extracted from the land.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Public Purpose and Section 4 Notification

The appellant argued that the acquisition of land was not for a public purpose, as the limestone extracted was used for manufacturing cement sold for profit rather than for public construction. The Court held that the declaration by the State Government under Section 6(1) of the Act that the land was required for a public purpose is conclusive, except in cases of colorable exercise of power. The Court referenced the precedent set in Smt. Somavanti v. The State of Punjab, which established that the government's satisfaction regarding public purpose is final unless shown to be a colorable exercise of power. The Court found no evidence of such misuse of power, thus rejecting the appellant's argument.

2. Application of Section 17(1) and (4) - Waste or Arable Land

The appellant contended that the land was neither waste nor arable, and thus the State Government lacked jurisdiction to apply Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act. The Court examined the definition of "waste land" and "arable land," concluding that the land in question, being forest land with significant tree cover, did not fit these definitions. The Court cited the Oxford Dictionary definitions and prior case law to support this interpretation. It was determined that the State Government's decision was ultra vires, as the jurisdiction depended on a correct preliminary finding of fact regarding the land's character. The Court also emphasized that the High Court could independently review such findings of fact in certiorari proceedings.

3. Sub-soil and Mineral Rights

The appellant claimed ownership of sub-soil and mineral rights based on historical grants (sanads) dating back to the 18th century. The Court examined the sanads and related historical documents, concluding that the grants included rights to the minerals beneath the land. The Court referenced Regulation VIII of 1793 and subsequent legal interpretations recognizing zamindars as proprietors of the soil, including sub-soil rights. The Court found no reservation of mineral rights in favor of the government in the sanads, supporting the appellant's claim to mineral rights.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

- The notification under Section 4 of the Act was not liable to be quashed on the grounds of public purpose, as the appellant failed to demonstrate a colorable exercise of power by the State Government.

- The application of Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act by the State Government was ultra vires, as the land was neither waste nor arable. The Court stated, "The condition imposed by s. 17(1) is a condition upon which the jurisdiction of the State Government depends."

- The appellant was entitled to sub-soil and mineral rights, including compensation for limestone, as the historical grants did not reserve mineral rights for the government. The Court noted, "In effect, the grant to the Raja in the two Sanads is a grant of the lands comprised in the Mahal of Agori and everything appertaining thereto."

Based on these findings, the Court quashed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and subsequent proceedings, including the award and reference to the civil court. However, the appellant's claim for restoration of possession was rejected due to the vesting of intermediary interests in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.