2011 (11) TMI 880 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of alternative land for acquisition.
2. Compliance with the procedure under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Invocation of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Consideration of Alternative Land for Acquisition:
The appellants contended that their objections regarding the availability of land belonging to Tamil Nadu Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) were not rationally considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Government. They argued that the TELC land was suitable for the public purpose of expanding the depot and that their land acquisition would deprive them of their sole means of livelihood. The Supreme Court noted that the RDO had overruled the objections, stating that TELC refused to sell their land and that the appellants' land was more suitable due to its proximity to the existing depot and easy access to the main road. The Court held that the Government's decision regarding the suitability of the appellants' land was not vitiated by any error of law or irrationality.

2. Compliance with the Procedure under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appellants argued that the acquisition was for the purposes of a 'company' and thus required compliance with Part VII of the Act. The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of 'company' in Section 3(e) of the Act, as amended in 1984, excludes government companies. Since the Corporation and its successor, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), fall under the definition of 'corporation owned or controlled by the State' u/s 3(cc), they are not covered by Part VII of the Act. Therefore, the acquisition did not require compliance with the procedures outlined in Part VII.

3. Invocation of Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution:
The appellants requested the Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 142 to declare the acquisition bad in law, citing their hardship and the livelihood of their family. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellants' hardship but emphasized that the acquisition had been completed in accordance with the law and that the public purpose had been stalled for over two decades. The Court held that the extraordinary power under Article 142 should be exercised sparingly and not in a manner that would frustrate the acquisition process. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' contentions. The acquisition of the appellants' land was upheld as lawful, and the pending applications were disposed of.