9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 38 to 44(b) of the Act, the same having not been taken, the proceedings taken are void; (2) there was no urgency and hence recourse should not have been had to Section 17 of the Act and (3) Section 17(2)(c) is inapplicable to the facts of the case. 3. Now we may state the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the questions in dispute. 4. On 14/17 March, 1969, Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act notifying for acquisition the land concerned in this case. The notification further directed that action under Section 17(2)(c) of the Act shall be taken on the ground of urgency and the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply in regard to the said acquisition. The preamble to the said notification says that whereas it appears to the Governor of Haryana that land is likely to be required to be taken by Government, at public expenses, for a public purpose, namely for the setting up a factory for the manufacture of China-ware and Porcelain-ware including Wall Glazed Tiles etc. at village Kasser, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, it is hereby notified that the land in the locality described in the specification below is likely to be requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). It was also denied that the acquisition in question was not made for a public purpose. 6. We have earlier seen that in the notification issued under Section 4, it had been stated that the acquisition was made at public expenses, for a public purpose namely for the setting up a factory for the manufacture of China-ware and Porcelain-ware including Wall Glazed Tiles etc. 7. In the writ petition it was not denied that the acquisition in question was made at public expenses . All that was challenged in the writ petition was that the purpose for which the acquisition was made not a public purpose. 8. There is no denying the fact that starting of a new industry is in public interest. It is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the new State of Haryana was lacking in industries and consequently it was become difficult to tackle the problem of unemployment. There is also no denying the fact that the industrialisation of an area is in public interest. That apart, the question whether the starting of an industry is in public interest or not is essentially a question that has to be decided by the Government. That is a socio-economic question. this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case does not come within the scope of Section 17(1). The State has also not purported to act under Section 17(1). It has purported to act under Section 17(2)(c). Therefore we have to see whether the State could have proceeded on the facts of this case under Section 17(2)(c). Section 17 as amended by the Punjab Act 2 of 1954, Punjab Act 17 of 1956 and Punjab Act 47 of 1956 to the extent necessary for our present purpose reads thus: 17 (1) In cases of urgency whenever, the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9, Sub-section (1) take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a Co. Such land shall thereupon, west absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Explanation. . . (2) In the following cases, that is to say : (a) Whenever owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it becomes necessary for any Railway Administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application of Section 17(2)(c) are (1) that the land must be required for a public purpose and (2) the appropriate Government must be of the opinion that the purpose in question is of urgent importance. But it was urged on behalf of the appellants that we should apply ejusdem generis rule in interpreting Section 17(2)(c) The contention on behalf of the appellants was that though Section 17(2)(c) read by itself covers a very large field, that provision should be given a narrower meaning because of the provisions in Section 17(2)(a) and (b). It was urged that as the general words contained in Section 17(2)(c) follow the specific words of the same nature, in Section 17(2)(a) and (b), those general words must be understood as applying to cases similar to those mentioned in Section 17(2)(a) and (b). 13. The ejusdem generis rule is not a rule of law but is merely a rule of construction to aid the courts to find out the true intention of the legislature. If a given provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear, there is no occasion to call into aid that rule ejusdem generis rule is explained in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 36 p. 397 paragr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bai v. The State of Bombay [1957] 1 SCR 721 it was observed : The rule of ejusdem generis is intended to be applied where general words have been used following particular and specific words of the same nature on the established rule of construction that the legislature presumed to use the general words in a restricted sense; that is to say, as belonging to the same genus at the particular and specific words. Such a restricted meaning has to be given to words of general import only where the context of the whole scheme, of legislation requires it. But where the content and the object and mischief of the enactment do not require such restricted meaning to be attached to words of general import, it becomes the duty of the courts to give those words their plain and ordinary meaning. 17. The same view was reiterated by this Court in K.K. Kochin v. State of Madras and Kerala A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1050. 18. Bearing in mind the principles set out earlier, we shall now C consider whether the general import of the words in Section 17(2)(c) should be cut down in view of Section 17(2)(a) and (b). under Clause (a) of Section 17(2), the acquisition is to be made by the Railway Administrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
