1966 (1) TMI 91 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Validity of the enquiry under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Compliance with Section 41(5) of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Applicability of Section 40(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act:

The appellants argued that the provisions of Section 5-A were not complied with, as they were not given an opportunity to be heard regarding their objections, and there was no valid report under Section 5-A. They contended that the Additional Land Acquisition Collector, who held the enquiry, lacked authority under Section 5-A(2) since only a Collector could hear objections and submit a report.

However, the court noted that this point was not specifically raised in the petition or before the trial judge. The respondents produced a notification showing that Shri Sudhirendranath Ganguly was appointed to perform the functions of a Collector. The court found that Ganguly, who heard the objections and made the report, was duly authorized. Thus, the contention lacked substance.

The appellants also argued that there was no proper hearing of objections as the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mr. Das Gupta, made further enquiries and comments behind the objectors' backs. The court referred to precedents, including a Supreme Court decision, indicating that a further hearing was not required at every stage. The court concluded that the proceedings under Section 5-A were not vitiated by Das Gupta's actions.

2. Validity of the enquiry under Section 40 of the Land Acquisition Act:

The appellants contended that Sections 5-A and 40 are mutually exclusive, and since an enquiry under Section 5-A was held, there was no scope for an enquiry under Section 40. The court disagreed, stating that Section 5-A applies to all acquisitions except in cases of urgency, and an enquiry under Section 40 may be necessary if the report under Section 5-A is incomplete or does not cover all matters. Thus, the enquiry under Section 40 was valid and supplementary to the Section 5-A enquiry.

3. Compliance with Section 41(5) of the Land Acquisition Act:

The appellants argued that the agreement under Section 41 did not comply with Clause (5) as it did not specify the terms on which the public could use the work. They cited a Supreme Court decision stating that a clause like Clause (8) of the agreement, which allowed public use subject to the Ram Krishna Mission's rules, was insufficient.

The court referred to another Supreme Court decision, which held that hostel buildings and playgrounds for students are directly useful to a section of the public. The court concluded that the construction of a Students' Home was directly useful to the public, and the agreement's clauses, including Clause (8), complied with Section 41(5). The absence of specific rules and regulations did not invalidate the agreement.

4. Applicability of Section 40(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act:

The respondents argued that the acquisition was justified under Section 40(1)(a) as amended by Act XXXI of 1962, which came into force before the agreement and declaration were made. They cited a Supreme Court decision stating that acquisition under Clause (aa) is valid if the company is engaged in work for a public purpose.

The court noted that the Ram Krishna Mission's work served a public purpose, and the construction of a Students' Home subserved this purpose. Although the court found merit in this argument, it did not express a final opinion, as it had already concluded that the acquisition was justified under Section 40(1)(b).

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents, as the court found no merit in the appellants' contentions. The court's order was stayed for one week.