1939 (2) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act due to alleged non-compliance with Section 5-A(2) and Section 6(1) of the Act.
2. Conclusiveness of the declaration under Section 6(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Whether the land acquisition was for a public purpose or a company.
4. Registration and legal status of the Radha Swami Satsang Sabha under Act 21 of 1860.
5. Costs awarded by the lower court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act:
The District Judge found that the plaintiff, Bohra Tara Chand, failed to show he had no notice of the date fixed for hearing his objection under Section 5-A(1) of the Act, making the declaration by the Government under Section 6(1) valid. The evidence presented by B. Asharfi Lal and Sharafat Husain indicated that the plaintiff was informed of the date and signed in acknowledgment. The plaintiff's signature was found immediately below the date fixed, suggesting he was informed and acknowledged it. The court concluded that the balance of probability was against the plaintiff and upheld the District Judge's finding.

2. Conclusiveness of the Declaration under Section 6(3) of the Land Acquisition Act:
The plaintiff argued that the declaration was not conclusive due to material defects and non-compliance with the Act's provisions. The court noted that a declaration under Section 6(3) is ordinarily conclusive of the fact that the land is needed for a public purpose or a company. However, it cannot be conclusive if any illegality or material violation of the Act occurred prior to the declaration. The court found that the declaration stating the land was required for a public purpose was defective since the land was actually required for the Sabha, regarded as a company. Despite this defect, the court held that the parties were aware that the land was being acquired for the Sabha, and the defect did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.

3. Public Purpose or Company:
The notification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 stated the land was needed for a public purpose, but it was actually required for the Sabha, a company. The court found that the notification and declaration should have clearly stated that the land was needed for a company. The court assumed that the Provincial Government was satisfied that the land was needed for constructing works likely to be useful to the public, fulfilling Section 40(1)(b) of the Act.

4. Registration and Legal Status of the Radha Swami Satsang Sabha:
The lower court declared that the Sabha was not a society or a company and its registration under Act 21 of 1860 was improper. The plaintiff argued that the Sabha was not a charitable society because there was no trust vesting the property in the Sabha. The court found that the Sabha was a well-organized society with charitable objects as stated in its Memorandum of Association and bye-laws. The court held that the Sabha was duly registered under Act 21 of 1860 and was a charitable society. The court also noted that the plaintiff's late-stage argument that the property belonged exclusively to the guru was not pleaded in the plaint and could not be entertained.

5. Costs Awarded by the Lower Court:
The lower court directed the Secretary of State for India to pay his own costs, reasoning that he was "found to be wrong." The court upheld this decision, noting that the defective declaration under Section 6(3) led to much controversy and expenditure of time. The court found that the declaration should have clearly stated the land was needed for a company. The court dismissed Appeals Nos. 27 and 48 of 1934 with costs and allowed Appeal No. 14 of 1934, setting aside the declaration that the Sabha was not a society or a company.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the validity of the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, despite the plaintiff's objections. The court found that the declaration under Section 6(3) was defective but did not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. The court confirmed that the land was needed for the Sabha, a company, and upheld the Sabha's registration under Act 21 of 1860. The court dismissed the appeals regarding costs and allowed the appeal challenging the lower court's declaration about the Sabha's legal status.