1964 (7) TMI 59 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delegation of State Government's power to acquire land.
2. Constitutional validity of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
3. Public purpose of the land acquisition.
4. Conclusiveness of the declaration under Section 6.
5. Acquisition for a company and compliance with Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. Classification of the petitioner's lands as waste or arable.
7. Subjective vs. objective opinion under Section 17.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delegation of State Government's Power to Acquire Land:
The petitioner challenged the delegation of the State Government's power to the Commissioner under the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that it was an excessive delegation of legislative power. The court examined the provisions of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957, which allowed the State Government to confer powers on the Commissioner through notifications. The court held that the delegation was valid, as it did not amount to an essential legislative function but was merely an administrative convenience. The court referred to principles laid down in previous cases, including the Delhi Laws Act case and Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, concluding that the delegation did not involve any essential change in policy.

2. Constitutional Validity of Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The petitioner argued that Sections 4 and 6, read with the amendment in Section 3(f)(2), infringed Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Somawanti v. State of Punjab, which upheld the validity of the Land Acquisition Act against similar challenges. The court also noted that Article 19 was not applicable due to the proclamation of emergency. The court held that the provisions did not infringe Article 31, as the acquisition was for a public purpose, and the definition of "public purpose" in Section 3(f)(2) was valid.

3. Public Purpose of the Land Acquisition:
The petitioner contended that the acquisition was not for a public purpose but for a company, the Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC). The court examined the notifications and affidavits, concluding that the purpose of acquiring the land was for developing an industrial area, which constituted a public purpose. The court held that the acquisition was for a public purpose, as it aimed to ensure orderly and planned development of industries, relieving congestion, and providing proper amenities.

4. Conclusiveness of the Declaration Under Section 6:
The court held that the declaration under Section 6 was not conclusive if it was a colorable exercise of power. The court found that the Commissioner's declaration was based on incorrect premises and without proper application of mind, as he was misinformed about the source of funds for the acquisition. The court held that the declaration was invalid, as the conditions of the proviso to Section 6 were not fulfilled.

5. Acquisition for a Company and Compliance with Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act:
The court found that the acquisition was for the MIDC, a company, and the compensation was to be paid from its funds. The court held that the acquisition should have followed the procedure under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, which was not done. Therefore, the acquisition was invalid.

6. Classification of the Petitioner's Lands as Waste or Arable:
The petitioner argued that his lands were not waste or arable but fit for industrial and building purposes. The court examined the evidence, including the petitioner's plans to shift his factory and the approval from the Government of India. The court held that the lands were not waste or arable, as they were within municipal limits and suitable for industrial use. The court found that the classification of the lands as waste or arable was incorrect and showed non-application of mind by the Commissioner.

7. Subjective vs. Objective Opinion Under Section 17:
The court held that the conditions under Section 17(1) must be objectively proved and were not left to the subjective satisfaction of the authority. The court found that the Commissioner's opinion that the lands were waste or arable was not based on proper application of mind and was incorrect. The court held that the urgency clause was wrongly applied, and the petitioner was deprived of his right to object under Section 5-A.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the application of Section 17. The court ordered the restoration of possession of the petitioner's land, finding the acquisition illegal and invalid. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner, with a stay on the order restoring possession until 1st October 1964.