9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely for expansion of the factory of Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited and for construction of quarters for their workers and staff and for providing other amenities directly connected therewith, such as schools, hospitals, markets etc. in certain villages. The Petitioner's land was covered by the said notification. 4. The Petitioner preferred an objection to the proposed acquisition under Section 5A of the Act on the ground that the land was not being acquired for a public purpose at all but for the purpose of the said company and the proposed acquisition constituted a fraud upon the powers conferred upon the State Government by the Land Acquisition Act. In November 1960, a local enquiry was held and eventually by a notification dated the 26th April 1962, the former notification was cancelled. 5. On November 3, 1961 a fresh notification was issued under Section 4 in respect of the same land, except for a small portion. It was notified that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose not being a purpose of the Union viz. for industrial development at Asansol. The Petitioner's land was included in the said land. 6. The Petitioner again objected to the propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not, at any time, ask for such information. As for the allegation that although the State Government is seeking to acquire the land ostensibly for a public purpose, in reality, the purpose of the acquisition is to enable Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited to acquire land cheaply for extension of its factory premises, the Land Acquisition Collector, in his affidavit says: I submit that the notification will speak for itself and the apprehensions of the Petitioner are denied." Elsewhere, he says, - "The allegations and submissions in the petition under reply to the effect that the acquisition is in reality for the purpose of Sen Raleigh Company are contrary to the impugned notification and declaration themselves. 12. These statements, of little assistance to the Court as they are, have been verified as submissions and not as statements true to his knowledge or based on information received by him and believed to be true. 13. On the question whether the notification and the declaration are vague as to the purpose of the acquisition and whether they convey any clear or adequate picture of the purpose to be served by the proposed acquisition, the learned Judge ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information before his objection is heard by the Collector. If such information is refused he may possibly have another cause of action. 18. It appears, however, from the records that the Petitioner's objections have been finally disposed of. In fact, the Land Acquisition Collector himself says that the Petitioner's objections have been overruled. The declaration under Section 6 could hardly have been made if the Petitioner's objections had not been disposed of. It is, therefore not necessary in this appeal to decide whether the Petitioner has been prejudiced by the absence of particulars of the public purpose in preferring his objections under Section 5A of the Act. Since he has chosen not to ask for particulars at the proper stage, the question does not arise. 19. I may now turn to the more serious objection of the Petitioner that the real purpose of the proposed acquisition is not a public purpose at all but to make available to Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited land at a cheap rate for the extension of its factory premises and that the notification and the declaration have been made in colourable exercise of the powers conferred by the Act. 20. The Land Acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is being acquired is within the legislative competence of the State, the declaration of the Government will be final subject, however, to one exception. That exception is that if there is a colourable exercise of power the declaration will be open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party. The power committed to the Government by the Act is a limited power in the sense that it can be exercised only where there is a public purpose, leaving aside, for the moment, the purpose of a company. If it appears that what the Government is satisfied about is not a public purpose but a private purpose or no purpose at all the action of the Government would be colourable as not being relatable to the power conferred upon it by the Act and its declaration will be a nullity. Subject to this exception, the declaration of the Government will be final: He further observed: If the purpose for which the acquisition is being made is not relatable to public purpose then a question may well arise whether in making the declaration there has been on the part of the Government a fraud on the power conferred upon it by the Act. In other words, the question would then arise whether that declara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. In the present case, the manner in which the Respondents have conducted themselves in dealing with the allegation of colourable exercise of power is the reverse of what is to be expected of Public Authorities. 27. I do not intend to say that the Petitioner's land is necessarily sought to be acquired for a purpose which is not a public purpose as declared in the notification, or that there are necessarily any mala fides in the matter but I do say that having regard to the nature of the allegation, the Respondents ought to have disclosed to the Court the specific purpose of the acquisition and whether the purpose is or is not what the Petitioner alleges it to be, the more so, when it transpires that the land was once sought to be acquired for the purpose of Sen Raleigh Industries of India Limited and on the objection of the Petitioner, the notification for acquisition was subsequently cancelled. 28. It is not merely the Petitioner who has a duty, as has often been said, not to suppress but to disclose all relevant facts and appear in Court with a clear conscience and clean hands. The duty is not less in the Respondents, especially when the relevant facts are peculiarly withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unfavourable to the person who withholds it, is of general application. 34. After all, when the proposed acquisition is impugned as acquisition in colourable exercise of power and there is a specific allegation of the real purpose of the acquisition, it is for the Respondents to disclose, except for good reasons, the relevant material or information, to enable the Court to pronounce on the matter and not to maintain a meaningful silence or indulge in equivocations and double entendres, rely on the doctrine of onus of proof and deflect the course of justice. For the Court to permit this to be done with success, will be to stultify itself, abdicate its functions and adjure its duties. 35. On the question, whether there was a demand for justice, learned advocate appearing for the State fairly conceded that the question was not raised at the hearing. We do not think it will be proper, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to permit the objection to be taken at this stage. 36. In view of the matter we have taken, the appeal succeeds. The order of the learned Judge is set aside and the Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. The order is made without prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
