TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a price higher than its market value but did not succeed. It, therefore, moved the State Government to acquire that land for it. The Government agreed and issued Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 1.8.1986 notifying its intention to acquire that land for a public purpose namely playground of students of Amar Nath Vidya Ashram (Public School), Mathura . Thereafter, inquiries Under Section 5-A and under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 were made. The Government also entered into an agreement with the appellant as required by Section 40(1) of the Act on 11.8.1987. It then issued a Declaration Under Section 6 on 4.9.1987 mentioning fact that the report made under sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Company) Rules, 1963 was considered by the Government that the Land Acquisition Committee constituted under Rule 3 of the said Rules was consulted, that the agreement entered between the appellant and the Governor was duly published that the Governor was satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for construction of a playground for students of Amar Nath Vidya Ashram (Public School), Mathura by the Amar Nath Ashram Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the power was exercised bona fide it is not open to the Court to invalidate such an action even if the reason given by the State is found to be erroneous. He submitted that Section 48 contains no words of limitation as regards the exercise of power and the only limitation put upon the power of the State Government is that it can exercise that power till possession of the land sought to be acquired is taken and not thereafter. He also submitted that if as a result of withdrawal from acquisition any damage is suffered by any party then he can be paid damages for the loss caused to him, and that there is one more reason why the decision of Government to withdraw from acquisition cannot be interfered with by the court of law. 6. It is now well established that if the cost of acquisition is borne either wholly or partly by the Government, the acquisition can be said to be for a public purpose within the meaning of the Act. But if the cost is entirely borne by the company then it is an acquisition for a company under part VII of the Act. It was so held by this Court in v. The State of Punjab , [1961]2SCR459 . This decision was relied upon by the learned counsel for the State to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40 of the Act and they cannot be construed to mean that no land cannot be acquired by the State Government without making substantial contribution towards the cost of acquisition. We cannot read something more in the said observation than what they were intended to convey. The provisions of part VII and particularly the provisions regarding payment of the entire costs of the acquisition would otherwise become redundant. 7. As the acquisition in this case was for the appellant-society which is running a school, it was an acquisition for a company and as disclosed by the agreement the entire cost of the acquisition was to be borne by the appellant-society. The declaration made Under Section 6 clearly referred to the inquiry made under Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 and the agreement entered into between the appellant-society and the State. Moreover, it was not pleaded by the State before the High Court that the acquisition in this case was for a public purpose and not under Chapter VII of the Act. Therefore, it is really not open to the counsel for the State to raise a contention which is contrary to the case, pleaded before the High Court. In the reply aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisition proceedings or incurred costs in relation thereto, he will be compensated therefore Under Section 48(2) of the Act. This Court further observed that the State can be permitted to exercise its power to withdraw unilaterally. It further observed that having regard to the scheme of the Act it is difficult to see why the State Government should at all be compelled to give any cogent reasons for its decision not to go ahead with the acquisition of any land. It is well settled in the field of specific performance of contracts that no person will be compelled to acquire any land, as a breach of contract can always be compensated for by damages. That is also the principle of Section 48(2) of the Act. In that case the Court found that the withdrawal was bona fide and was justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. That was a case where the decision of the Government to withdraw from acquisition was challenged by the owner of the land on the ground that the withdrawal was mala fide and it was bad because no show cause notice was served to the company before the withdrawal order was passed. It was in that context that this Court made the above quoted observations. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
