Appeal No 2034 of 1969
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 7 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No 850 of 1969
K L Gosain N N Goswamy section K Mehta K L Mehta and K R Nagaraja for the appellant
Harbans Singh and R N Sachthey for respondents Nos 1 and 2
section V Gupte and section K Gambhir for respondent No 18
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde J
This appeal by certificate arises from the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a writ petition wherein the appellants challenged the validity of proceedings under sections 4 6 9 and 17 2 c of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Punjab Legislature
For convenience sake we shall refer to that amended Act as the Act 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition
It appears that several contentions were sought to be advan ced before the High Court but in this Court only three con tentions have been pressed for our consideration ie 1 the acquisition in question being one for a company proceedings should have been taken under sections 38 to 44B 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 172 c is inapplicable to the facts of the case
Now we may state the factsrelevant for the purpose of deciding the questions in dispute
873 On 1417 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 5 A 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 Chine ware and Porcelain ware including Wall Glazed Tiles etc
at village Kasser
Tehsil Jhajjar District Rohtak it is here by notified that the land in the locality described in the specification below is likely to be required for the above purpose
On March 18 1969 the Government isued a notification under section 6 of the Act acquiring the land for a public purpose On March 28 1969 notices under section 9 of the Act were served on the appellants
On April 8 1969 the appellants filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal
The allegations in the writ petition include the assertion that there was no urgency in the matter of acquiring the land in question and therefore there was no justification for having recourse to section 17 and thus deprive the appellants of the benefit of section 5 A of the Act
It was further alleged therein that the acquisition in question was made for the benefit of a company and hence proceedings should have been taken under sections 38 to 44B of the Act and that there was no public purpose involved in the case
It was further pleaded that the land acquired was not waste and parable land and that section 2 c of the Act did not confer power on the Government to dispense with the proceedings under section 5 A
In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Director of Industries Administration Government of Haryana On behalf of the State of Haryana the above allegations were all denied
Therein it is stated that at the instance of the State of Haryana Government of India had issued a letter of intent to a company for setting up a factory for the manufacture of Glazed Tiles etc
in village Kasser
That project was to be started with the collaboration of a foreign company known as Pilkington Tiles Ltd The scheme for setting up the project had been finalised and approved by the concerned authorities
on November 26 1968 the Government wrote to one of the pro moters of the project Shri H L Somany asking him to com plete the arrangements for the import of capital equipment and acquisition of land in Haryana State for setting up of the proPosed factory
It was further stated in that communication the Government was pleased to extend the time for compleing the Project upto April 30 1969
Under those circumstances it 8 74 had become necessary for the State of Haryana to take imme diate steps to acquire the required land
It was under those circumstances the Government was constrained to have recourse to section 17 of the Act
The Government denied the allegation that the facts of this case did not come within the scope of section 17 2 c
It was also denied that the acquisition in question was not made for a public purpose
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
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
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 now 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 industrialization 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 socioeconomic question
This Court is not in a position to go into that question
So long as it is not established that the acquisition is sought to be made for some collateral purpose the declaration of the Govern
men it is made for a public purpose is not open to challenge Section 63 says that the declaration of the Government that the acquisition made is for public purpose shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose
Unless it is shown that there was a colorable exercise of power it is not open to this Court to go behind that declaration and find out whether in a particular case the purpose for which the land was needed was a public purpose or not see Smt
Somavanti and ors
vs The State of Punjab1 and Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State of Up2
On the facts of this case there can be hardly any doubt that the purpose for which the land was acquired is a public purpose
In view of the pleadings referred to earlier it is not open to the appellant to contend that the State Government had not contributed any Amount towards the cost of acquisition We were informed at the bar that the State Government had contributed 1 2  875 a sum of Rs 100 towards the cost of the land which fact is also mentioned in the award of Land Acquisition Officer
That being so it was not necessary for the Government to proceed with the acquisition under Part VII of the Act see Somavanti s case1
Now coming to the question of urgency it is clear from the facts set out earlier that there was urgency The Government of India was pleased to extend time for the completion of the of project upto April 30 1969
Therefore urgent steps had to be taken for pushing through the project
The fact that the St ate Government or the party concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not very relevant for deciding the question whether on the date on which the notification was issued there was urgency or not the conclusion of the Government in a given case that there was urgency entitled to weight if not conclusive
This takes us to the question of applicability of section 17 2 c to the facts of the case
The appellant had denied in the affidavit that the entire land acquired is either waste or arable Iand That contention of his has not been examined by the High Court
Therefore we have to proceed on the basis that the case does not come within the scope of section 171
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 1 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 Company
Such land shall there uponvest 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 thereon a river side or ghat station or of 1 876 providing convenient connection with or access to any such station b Whenever in the opinion of the Collector it becomes necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose of any library or educational institution or for the construction extension or improvement of any building or other structure in any village for the common use of the inhabitants of such village or any godown for any society registered under the Act 11 of 1912 or any dwelling house for the poor or the construction of labour colonies or houses for any other class of people under a Govermnent sponsored Housing Scheme or any irrigation tank irrigation or drainage channel or any well or any public road c Whenever land is required for a public purpose which in the opinion of the appropriate Government is of urgent importance the Collector may immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in sub section 1 and with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government enter upon and take possession of such land which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances
Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of any building or part of a build ing under this sub section Without giving to the occupier thereof at least  forty eight hour s notice of his intention so to do 
3 In every case under either of the preceding subsections the Collector shall at the time of taking possession offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crop and three if any on such land and for any other damage sustained by them caused by sudden dispossession  4 In the case of any land to which in the opinion of the appropriate Government the provisions of subsection 1 or sub section 2 are applicable the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of section 5 A shall not apply 877 Herein we are only concerned with the scope of section 17 2 c as the vires of section 172 is not challenged
Section 172c if read by itself is plain
It seems to permit the appropriate Government to direct that the provisions of Section 5 A shall not apply whenever land is required for public purpose which in the opinion of the appropriate Government is of urgent importance
The conditions precedent for the 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 generie 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 172 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
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 I 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
36 p 397 paragraph 599 thus As a rule Where in a statute there are general words following particular and specific words the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified although this  as a rule of construction must be applied with caution subject to the primary rule that statutes are to be construed in accordance with the intention of Parliament
For the ejusdem rule to apply the specific words must constitute a category class or genus if they do constitute such a category class or genus then only things which belongs to that category class or genus fall within the general words
It is observed in Craies on Statute Law 6th Edn p 181 that  The ejusdem generis rule is one to be applied With caution and not pushed too far as in the case of many decisions which treat it as automatically appli 878 cable and not as being what it is a mere presumption in the absence of other indications of the intention of the legislature
The modem tendency of the law it was said is to attenuate the application of the rule of ejusdem generis
To invoke the application of the ejusdem generis rule there must be a distinct genus or category
The specific words must apply not to different objects of a widely differing character but to something which can be called a class or kind of objects
According to Sutherland Statutory Construction 3rd Edn Vol
II p 395 for the application of the doctrine of ejusdem generis the following conditions must exist
i The statute contains an enumeration by specific words ii The members of the enumeration constitute a class iii The class is not exhausted by the enumeration iv A general term follows the enumeration and v There is not clearly manifested an intent that the general term be given a broader meaning than the doctrine requires
The scope of the ejusdem generis rule has been considered by this Court in several decisions
In State of Bombay vs Ali Gulshan1 it was observed Apart from the fact that the rule must be confined within narrow limits and general or comprehensive words should recive their full and natural meaning unless they are clearly restrictive in their intendment it is requisite that there must be a distinct genus which must comprise more than one species before the rule can be applied
In Lilavati Bai vs The State of Bombay2 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  as the particular and specific words
Such a restricted mean 1  2  879 ing 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 The same view was reiterated by this Court in K K Kochini vs State of Madras and Kerala1
Bearing in mind the principles set out earlier we shall now consider whether the general import of the words in section 17 2 e should be cut down in view of section 17 2 a and b
Under cl
a of section 172 the acquisition is to be made by the Railway Administration when owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency it becomes necessary for the administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the maintenance of the traffic or for the purpose of making thereon a river side or ghat station or for providing convenient connection with or access to any such station
We would like to emphasize that under this provision the acquisition can only be made by the Railway Administration and that when it considers that immediate possession of any land is necessary for the purposes mentioned therein Under el
b of sub section
2 of section 17 before an acquisition can be made the Collector must form an opinion that it has become necessary to acquire the immiediate possession of the land concerned for the  purposes mentioned therein
Under cl
c of section 172 the acquisition can be made only when the appropriate Government forms the opinion that because of urgent importance the concerned land has to be acquired for the purposes mentioned in that provision
Under el
a the derision to acquire has to be made by the Railway Administration
Under el
b the acquisition can be made only on the formation of the required opinion by the Collector
Under el
c the acquisition can be made only when the requisite opinion is formed by the appropriate Government
Further under el
a the acquisition has to be made to meet certain unforeseen emergency as a result of which the immediate possession of the land is necessary
Under el
b the Collector must form an opinion that it has become necessary to acquire the immediate possession of land but under el
c the requirement is that the appropriate Government must form the opinion that the acquisition is of urgent importance
Under cls
a b and c of sub section
2 of section 17 the decision to acquire land has not to be made by the 1 AIR 1960 SC 1050
1 AIR 1960 sc 1050 880 same authority but by different authorities
Further the conditions under which the acquisition has to be made differ from clause to clause
Therefore there is no basis to say that the general words in cl
c follow the particular and specific words in cls
b and c
Nor can it be said that the specific words contained in cls
a and b constitute a category class or genus
Hence we are unable to accept the contention that in interpreting cl
c of section 172 we should apply the rule of ejusdem generis
As none of the contentions taken by the appellants are ac ceptable thise appeal fails and is dismissed
But in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
KBN Appeal dismissed


Summary:
In March 1969 the respondent State issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as amended by the Punjab Legislature for acquisition of the appellants  land
The notification stated that the land was likely to be required to be taken by Government at public expense for a public purpose namely
the setting up of a factory for the starting of an industry and further that action under section 172c would be taken on the ground of urgency and provisions of section 5A will not apply in regard to the said acquisition
The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity of the acquisition on the ground inter alia that there was no urgency in the mattelr of requiring the land  therefore recourse to section 17 was not justified
The state government pleaded that since the Government of India had extended the time for completion of the project till April 30 1969 it had become necessary to take immediate steps to acquire the land
The High Court dismissed the petition
In the appeal to this Court it was contended that i the acquisition in question being one for the benefit of a Company proceedings should have been taken under sections 38 to 44B of the Act and that there was no public purpose involved in the case ii there was no urgency and hence recourse could not be had to section 17 of the Act and iii section 172 c was inapplicable to the facts of the case because though section 172c read by itself covered a very large field applying the ejusdem generis Rule that provision had to be given a narrower meaning because of the provisions of section 172a and b
Dismissing the appeal HELD  i On the facts of the case the purpose for which land was acquired was a public purpose
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
So long as it is not established that the acquisition is sought to be made for some collateral purpose or that there is a colourable exercise of power the declaration of the government that it is made for a public purpose is not open to challenge
874 E G Smt Somavanti and Ors vs State of Punjab 1963 2 SCR 774 and Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State of UP   referred to
In view of the fact that the State Government had contributed towards the cost of acquisition it was not necessary to proceed with the acquisition under Part VII of the Act
875 A 8 7 2 ii On the facts of the case there was urgency
The conclusion of the Government in a given case that there was urgency is entitled to weight if not conclusive
iii In interpreting cl
c of section 172 the rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied
If a given provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear there is no occasion to call into aid that rule
Under cls
a b and c of sub section
2 of section 17 the decision to acquire land has not to be made by the same authority but by different authorities
Further the conditions under which the acquisition has to be made differ from clause to clause
Therefore there is no basis to say that the general words in cl
c follow the particular and specific words in cls
b and c
877 E 879 H State of Bomby vs Ali Gulshan  Lilavati Bai vs Stat of Bombay   K K Kochuni vs State of Madras AIR 1960 SC 1050 referred to