1993 (3) TMI 106 - SC - Central Excise

Whether under the Land Acquisition Act and public purpose is required to be specified in the notification with particularity and the specification should not be vague? Held that - The notification in the present case specifically provides that the land was being acquired for the purpose of development plan and construction of residential commercial and administrative buildings . The Division Bench of the High Court has after discussing the material on the record in detail found as a fact that ample opportunity of hearing was given to Bhawani Singh by the Officer-on-Special Duty who heard the objections. The High Court further found that the objections filed by the Samiti Were fully considered by the said officer. We find no infirmity in the findings of the High Court and agree with the same. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of land acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959.
2. Requirement of a scheme under Chapter V of the Act for land acquisition.
3. Validity of the State Government's decision-making process under Section 52 of the Act.
4. Timeliness of the award under Section 60A of the Act.
5. Specificity of the public purpose in the acquisition notices.
6. Comparative utility of the land's current use versus the proposed public purpose.
7. Adequacy of the hearing process for objections.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Land Acquisition Under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959:
The appeals originate from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959. The appellants challenged these proceedings via writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Single Judge initially quashed the proceedings, but the Division Bench later reversed this decision, leading to the current appeals.

2. Requirement of a Scheme Under Chapter V of the Act for Land Acquisition:
The appellants argued that the framing of a scheme under Chapter V is essential for invoking Section 52 of the Act. However, the Court clarified that the State Government could undertake urban improvement independently of the trust. Section 52 allows the State Government to acquire land for any public purpose under the Act, even without a scheme from the trust.

3. Validity of the State Government's Decision-Making Process Under Section 52 of the Act:
The Court found that the State Government had the authority to acquire land either for executing schemes framed by the trust or for other public purposes under the Act. The notification under Section 52(1) stated that the land was being acquired for constructing residential, commercial, and administrative buildings. The Court concluded that the State Government had applied its mind and followed the correct procedure.

4. Timeliness of the Award Under Section 60A of the Act:
The appellants argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because the award was not made within two years from August 1, 1987, as required by Section 60A of the Act. The Court noted that the proceedings were stayed by interim orders, and thus, the period of stay should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period. This principle is supported by the explanation to Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. Specificity of the Public Purpose in the Acquisition Notices:
The appellants contended that the public purpose mentioned in the notices was vague. The Court distinguished this case from the precedent cited, noting that the notification specifically mentioned the land was for "development plan and construction of residential, commercial and administrative buildings." The Court found this sufficient to meet the requirement of specifying the public purpose.

6. Comparative Utility of the Land's Current Use Versus the Proposed Public Purpose:
The appellants argued that the land, including a polo ground, served a significant public purpose. The Court held that it could not compare the utility of the existing use with the proposed public purpose. Once it is established that the acquisition is for a public purpose, the proceedings cannot be faulted based on the land's current use.

7. Adequacy of the Hearing Process for Objections:
The Court found that ample opportunity for hearing was given to the objectors, including Bhawani Singh and the Samiti. The objections were duly considered by the Officer-on-Special Duty. The Court agreed with the High Court's findings on this issue.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the Court upheld the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →