9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the acquisition of land for constructing residential houses by a cooperative society constitutes a "public purpose" under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Whether the construction of residential houses qualifies as "work" under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Whether the State Government's consent under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act is valid. 4. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Public Purpose under the Land Acquisition Act: The petitioner argued that the land acquisition was not for a public purpose because the cooperative society's members sought the land for personal benefit. The court examined the preamble and various sections of the Land Acquisition Act and the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912, which emphasize promoting self-help among poorer people and benefiting society members. The court concluded that the construction of residential houses by the cooperative society could be considered useful to the public due to the general dearth of residential accommodation in towns and cities of Uttar Pradesh. The court reasoned that increasing residential accommodation would benefit not only the society members but also the resident public by potentially lowering rents and easing housing shortages. 2. Definition of "Work" under Section 40: The petitioner contended that the term "work" in Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act referred to large industrial or scientific establishments and not ordinary residential houses. The court reviewed dictionary definitions and relevant case law, concluding that the term "work" has a broad meaning and includes the construction of residential houses. The court found that residential houses fall within the ordinary popular meaning of "work" and are not confined to large industrial or scientific constructions. 3. Validity of State Government's Consent under Section 40: The petitioner argued that the State Government lacked jurisdiction to consent to the acquisition under Section 40 because the construction of houses did not qualify as "work" likely to prove useful to the public. The court examined the legislative history and the wording of the current Land Acquisition Act, noting that the Act allows land acquisition for companies, including cooperative societies. The court found that the construction of residential houses by the cooperative society would benefit the public by increasing housing availability and potentially lowering rents, thus satisfying the requirement of being "useful to the public." 4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Before Notification under Section 6: The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature as no notification under Section 6 had been issued. The court considered the introduction of Section 5-A in 1923, which allows objections to land acquisition and makes the Collector's function quasi-judicial. The court held that the petitioner could challenge the State Government's decision to consent to the acquisition before the issuance of a notification under Section 6. The court cited previous rulings that allowed for judicial review of the government's decision at this stage, emphasizing that the decision under Section 5-A is subject to review by the courts. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the acquisition of land for constructing residential houses by the cooperative society constituted a public purpose, the construction of residential houses qualified as "work," and the State Government's consent under Section 40 was valid. The court also held that the writ petition was maintainable before the issuance of a notification under Section 6. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 300, with Rs. 200 to the cooperative society and Rs. 100 to the State Government.
|
