Appeal Nos
1616 1621 69 Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 16thl9th of Jun 1967 of the Bombay High Court in SCA Nos
197164 115 216 343 345 and 57965 and CIVIL APPEAL NOS
1411 141369 Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 16 6 67 of the Bombay High Court in SCA Nos
197164 115 and 34565
M Natesan AK Sen In CA 141269 Nannit Lal and Lalita Kohli In CAs
1616 162169 and Respondents in CAs
1411 1413 69
MH Phadke MN Shroff for Respondents In CAs
1616162169 and for Appellants in CAs
1411 141369
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG J
There are nine appeals before us after certifi cation of fitness of the cases for appeals to this Court directed against orders governed by the same judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Maharashtra disposing of Writ Petitions relating to four groups of lands which were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act 
A notification dated 11th October 1963 under  Section 4 of Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette with regard to the first group
The public purpose recited in the notification was development and utilisation of said land as a residential and industrial area
The noti fication goes on to state AND WHEREAS the Commissioner Bombay Division is of the opinion that the said lands were waste or arable lands and their acquisition is urgently necessary he is further pleased to direct under sub section 4 of Section 17 of the said Act that the provisions 01 Section 5 A of the said  Act shall not apply in respect of the said land
Thereafter a notification was issued under section 6 of the Act on 19th December 1963 followed by notices under Sec tion 93 and 4 the Act
With regard to the second group of lands identically similar notifications under Section 4 together with identi cally worded
declarationcure direction under section 174 of the Act were issued on 13th June 1965
As proceedings with regard to land comprised in this group were not fol lowed up by notification under section 6 of the Act
it was conceded by Counsel in the course of arguments on behalf of the State in the High Court that the proceedings had become invalid
769 We arc therefore not concerned with lands in this  group in the appeals now before us Nevertheless it is not devoid of significance that the terms of the notification under section 41 and the declaration cure directions under section 174 of the Act in this group are also identical with those in the first two groups
This cer tainly suggests that directions under section 174 could have been
mechanically issued in all the groups in identi cal terms without due application of mind t0 the factual requirements prescribed by law
The third group of land was also the subject matter of identically similar notifications under section 4 of the
Act dated 13th June 1964 together with identically worded declarations cum directions under section 174 of the Act
This land was notified under section 6 of the Act on 28th September 1964 followed by the notice under section 9 sub sections 3 and 4 of the Act on 28th October 1964
With regard to the land in the fourth group a notifi cation under Section 4 01  the Act took place on 13th Novem ber 1963 in substantially the same terms as those in the other three groups but there was no direction under sec tion 174 of the Act
Consequently the appellant filed his objection  on 9th January 1964
Later a notification under section 6 of the Act on 13th July 1964 was accompa nied by identically worded vague declaration of urgency under section 174 of the Act
This strange course of action suggests that notification under section 174 was probably made only to save the botheration of the inquiry begun under section 5A of the Act which should and could have been concluded quite easily before 13th July 1964
In Writ Petitions before the High Court the submission that no public purpose existed was not pressed in view of the decision of this Court in Smt
Somavanti  Ors
vs The State of Punjab  Ors
U  In Shri Ramtanu Co operative Housing Society Ltd  Anr
vs State Maharashtra
 Ors2 acquisition of land for development of industrial areas and residential tenements for persons to live on industrial estates was held to be legally valid for a genuinely public purpose
This ground therefore need not detain us although file appellants who are owners of the properties acquired have formally raised it also by means of the six appeals filed by them Civil Appeals Nos
161 6 1621 of 1969
In agreement with the High Court we hold that notification under section 41 of the Act were valid in all these cases
The real question which has been argued before us is raised by the State of Maharashtra in its three appeals Nos 1411 to 1413 of 1969 against the view taken by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in its judgment dated 16th June 1967
It had held that although notifications under section 4 1  of the Act were valid yet the Government of Maharashtra had not discharged its burden of showing facts constituting the urgency which impelled it to give declara tionscum directions under section 174 of the Act dispens ing with the 11963 2 SCR 774 2  at 723 770 enquiries under section 5A of the Act Therefore actions taken pursuant to those declarations under section 174 of the Act were held to be invalid and quashed
The result was that parties were relegated to the position they could take up in the absence of declarations under section 174 of the Act in the cases decided by the High Court
The correctness of this view is assailed before us
The case of the State of Maharashtra is stated as fol lows in the affidavit filed by the Special Land Acquisition officer I deny the allegation that the urgency clause has been applied without any valid reason
I respectfully submit that whether an urgency exists or not for exercising the powers under section 171 of the Act is a matter solely for the determination of the State Government or the Com missioner
Without prejudice to this respect fully submit that as mentioned in the impugned Notifications the 3rd Respondent formed the opin ion that the said lands were urgently acquired for the public purposes mentioned therein and accord ingly he was pleased to so direct under the provi sions of Section 174 of the Act
 The respondent No 3 referred to in the affidavit is the Commissioner of Bombay Division
It is significant that in the affidavit filed in reply to the assertions of peti tioners denying the existence of such urgency as to attract the provisions of section 174 of the Act
the position primarily taken up on behalf of the State of Maharashtra was that the existence of the urgency is not a justiciable matter at all left for determination by Courts
After that there is a bare submission stating the alternative case that the 3rd respondent had formed the opinion that the said lands were urgently required for the public purpose mentioned therein
But no facts or particulars are stated to which the mind of the Commissioner could have been ap plied in forming the opinion that the situation called for declarations cum directions under section 174 of the Act to dispense with inquiries under section 5A of the Act in these cases
It is important to
remember that the mind of the officer or authority concerned has really to be directed towards formation of an opinion on the need to dispense with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act
It is true that in such cases the formation of an opinion is a subjective matter as held by this Court re peatedly with regard to situations in which administrative authorities have to form certain opinions before taking actions they are empowered to take
They are expected to know better the difference between a right or wrong opinion than Courts could ordinarily on such matters
Neverthe less that opinion has to be based upon some relevant mate rials in order to pass the test which Courts do impose
That test basically is was the authority concerned acting within the scope of its powers or in the sphere where its opinion and discretion must be permitted to have full play Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some materiaL however 771 meagre on which it could reasonably base its opinion the Courts should not and will not interfere
There might however be cases in which the power is exercised in such an obviously arbitrary or perverse fashion without regard to the actual and undeniable facts or in other words so unreasonably as to leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a Court that there has been an excess of power
There may also be cases where the mind of the authority concerned has not been applied at all due to misunderstanding of the law or some other reason what was legally imperative for it to consider
The High Court had put its point of view in the following words When the formation of an opinion or the satisfaction of an authority is subjective but is a condition precedent to the exercise of a power the challenge to the formation of such opinion or to such satisfaction is limited in law to three points only
It can be challenged firstly on the ground of malafides secondly on the ground that the authority which formed that opinion or which arrived at such satisfaction did not apply its mind to the material on which it formed the opinion or arrived at the satisfaction and third ly that the material on which it formed its opin ion or reached the satisfaction was so insuffi cient that no man could reasonably reach that conclusion
So far as the third point is con cerned no Court of law can as in an appeal consider that on the material placed before the authority the authority was justified in reaching its conclusion
The Court can interfere only in such cases where there was no material at all or the material was so insufficient that no man could have reasonably reached that conclusion
It is not necessary to refer to the authorities which lay down these propositions because they have by now been well established in numerous judgments and they are not in dispute before us at the Bar
In this case however there is no challenge on any of these three grounds
The dispute in this case therefore narrows down to the point as to the burden of proof
In other words the dispute is whether it is the petitioner who has to bring the material before the Court to support his contention that no urgency existed or whether once the peti tioner denied that any urgency existed it was incumbent upon the respondent to satisfy the Court that there was material upon which the respondents could reach the opinion as mentioned in section 174
 On the evidence before it the High Court recorded its conclusions as follows In the case before us the petitioner has stated in the petition more than once that the urgency clause had been applied without any valid reason
The urgency clause in respect of each of the said two notifications concerning the lands m groups Nos 1 and 2 is contained in the relative section 4 772 notification itself
The public purpose stated in the notification is for development and utiliza tion of the said lands as an industrial and resi dential area 
To start with this statement itself vague in the sense that it is not clear whether the development and utilization of the lands referred to in that statement was confined to the lands mentioned in the schedule to the Notification or it applied to a wider area of which such lands formed only a part
So far as the affidavit in reply is concerned no facts whatever are stated
The affidavit only states that the authority ie the Commissioner of the Bombay Division was satisfied that the possession of the said lands was urgently required for the purpose of carrying out the said development
Even Mr Setal vad conceded that the affidavit does not contain a statement of facts on which the authority was satisfied or on which it formed its opinion
It is therefore quite clear that the respondents have failed to bring on record any material what ever on which the respondents formed the opinion mentioned in the two notifications
The notifica tions themselves show that they concern many lands other than those failing in the said first and third groups
It is not possible to know what was the development for which the lands were being acquired much less is it possible to know what were the circumstances which caused urgency in the taking of possession of such lands
We have held that the burden of proving such circumstances at least prima facie is on the respondents
As the respondents have brought no relevant material on the record the respondents have failed to dis charge that burden
We must in conclusion hold that the urgency provision under section 174 was not validly resorted to
It has been submitted on behalf of the State that we need decide nothing more than a simple question of burden of proof in the cases before us
We do not think that a question relating to burden of proof is always free from difficulty or is quite so simple as it is sought to be made out here
Indeed the apparent simplicity of a question relating to presumptions and burdens of proof which have to always viewed together is often deceptive
Over simplification of such questions leads to erroneous statements and misapplications of the law
Our Evidence Act is largely a codification with certain variations of the English law of evidence as it stood when Sir James Fits James Stephens drafted it
Therefore in order to fully grasp the significance of its provisions we have to sometimes turn to its sources in English  law which attained something resembling clarity only by stages
In Woolmington vs Director of Public Prosecu tions1 Lord Sankey pointed out that rules of evidence contained in early English cases are quite confusing
He observed It was only later that Courts began to discuss such things as presumption and onus
He also said that the word onus is used indifferently throughout the books
1  773 sometimes meaning the next move or step in the process of proving and sometimes the conclusion
In Phipson on Evidence 11th Edn at page 40 paragraph 92 we find the principles stated in a manner which sheds considerable light on the meanings of the relevant provisions of our Evidence Act As applied to judicial proceedings the phrase burden of proof  has two distinct and frequently confused meanings 1 the burden of proof as a matter of law and pleading the burden as it has been called of establishing a case whether by preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt and 2 the burden of proof in the sense of adducing evi dence
 It is then explained The burden of proof in this sense rests upon the party whether plaintiff or defendant who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue It is an ancient  rule rounded on considerations of good sense and it should not be departed from without strong reasons 
It is fixed at the begin ning of the trial by the state of the pleadings and it is settled as a question of law remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings place it and never shifting in any circumstances whatever
If when all the evidence by whomsoever introduced is in the party who has this burden not discharged it the decision must be against him
The application of rules relating to burden of proof in various types of cases is thus elaborat ed and illustrated in Phipson by reference to decided cases see p 40 para 93 In deciding which party asserts the affiramative regard must of course be had to the substance of the issue and not merely to its grammatical form which latter the pleader can frequently vary at will moreover a negative alle gation must not be confounded with the mere tra verse of an affirmative one
The true meaning of the rule is that where a given allegation whether affirmative or negative forms an essential part of a party s case the proof of such allegation rests on him eg in an action against a tenant for not repairing according to covenant or against a horse dealer that a horse sold with a warranty is unsound proof of these allegations is on the plaintiff so in actions of malicious prosecution it is upon him to show not only that the defendant prosecuted him unsuccessfully but also the absence of reasonable and probable cause while in actions or false imprisonment proof of the existence of reasonable cause is upon the defendant since arrest unlike prosecution in prima facie a tort and demands justification
In bailment cases the bailee must prove that the goods were lost without his fault
Under the Courts Emergency Powers Act 1939 the burden of proving that the defendant was unable immediately to satisfy the judgment and that inability arose from circumstances attributa ble to the 774 war rested on the defendant
But it would seem that in an election petition alleging breaches of rules made under the Representation of the People Act 1949 the Court will look at the evidence as a whole and that even if breaches are proved by the petitioner the burden of showing that the elec tion was conducted substantially in accordance with the law does not rest upon the respondent
Where a corporation does an act under statutory powers which do not prescribe the method and that act invades the rights of others the burden is on the corporation to show that there was no other practi cal way of carrying out the power which would have that effect
Turning now to the provisions of our own Evi dence Act we find the general or stable burden of proving a case stated in section 101 as follows 101
Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depend ent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person
The principle is stated in section 102 from the point of view of what has been sometimes called the burden of leading or introducing evidence which is placed on the party initiating a proceeding
It says 102
The burden of proof in a suit or pro ceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side
In practice this lesser burden is discharged by merely showing that there is evidence in the case which supports the case set up by the party which comes to Court first irrespective of the side which has led that evidence
An outright dismissal in limine of a suit or proceeding for want of evidence is thus often avoided
But the burden of establishing or general burden of proof is heavier
Sometimes evidence coming from the side of the respondents in the form of either their admissions or conduct or failure to controvert may strengthen or tend to support a petitioner s or plaintiff s case so much that the heavier burden of proving or establishing a case as distinguished from the mere duty of introducing or showing the existence of some evidence on record stated in section 102 is itself discharged
Sufficiency of evidence to discharge the onus probandi is not apart from instances of blatant perversity in assessing evi dence examined by this Court as a rule in appeals by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution
It has been held that the question whether an onus probandi has been discharged is one of fact see AIR 1930 PC p 90
It is gener ally so
Proof which is the effect of evidence led is defined by the provisions of section 3 of the Evidence Act
The effect of evidence has to be distinguished from the duty Or burden of showing to the Court 775 what conclusions it should reach
This duty is called the onus probandi which is placed upon one of the parties in accordance with appropriate provisions of law applicable to various situations but the effect of the evidence led is a matter of inference or a conclusion to be arrived at by the Court
The total effect of evidence is determined at the end of a proceeding not merely by considering the general duties imposed by sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act but also the special or particular ones imposed by other provisions such as sections 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act
Section 103 enacts 103
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person
And section 106 lays down 106
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him
In judging whether a general or a particular or special onus has been discharged the Court will not only consider the direct effect of the oral and documentary evidence led but also what may be indirectly inferred because
certain facts have been proved or not proved though easily capable of proof if they existed at all which raise either a pre sumption of law or of fact
Section 114 of the Evidence Act covers a wide range of presumptions of fact which can be used by Courts inthe course of
administration of justice to remove lacunae in the chain of direct evidence before iL It is therefore said that the function of a presumption often is to fill a gap in evidence
True presumptions whether of law or of fact are always rebuttable
In other words the party against which a presumption may operate can and must lead evidence to show why the presumption should not be given effect to
If for example the party which initiates a proceeding or comes with a case to Court offers no evidence to support it the presumption is that such evidence does not exist
And if some evidence is shewn to exist on a question in issue but the party which has it within its power to produce it does not despite notice to it to do so
produce it the natural presumption is that it would if produced have gone against it
Similarly a presumption arises from failure to discharge a special or particular onus
The result of a trial or proceeding is determined by a weighing of the totality of facts and circumstances and presumptions operating in favour of one party as against those which may tilt the balance in favour of another
Such weighment always takes place at the end of a trial or proceeding which cannot for purposes of this final weighment be split up into disjointed and disconnected parts simply because the requirements of procedural regularity and logic embodied in procedural law prescribe a sequence a stage and a mode of proof for each party tendering its evidence
What is weighed at the end is one 776 totality against another and not selected bits or scraps of evidence against each other
Coming back to the cases before us we find that the High Court had correctly stated the grounds on which even a subjective opinion as to the existence of the need to take action under section 174 of the Act can be challenged on certain limited grounds
But as soon as we speak of a challenge we have to bear in mind the general burdens laid down by sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act
It is for the petitioner to substantiate the grounds of his challenge
This means that the petitioner has to either lead evidence or show that some evidence has come from the side of the respondents to indicate that his challenge to a notification or order is made good
If he does not succeed in discharging that duty his petition will fail
But is that the position in the cases before us  We find that although the High Court had stated the ques tion before it to be one which narrows down to the point as to the burden of proof yet it had analysed the evi dence sufficiently before it to reach the conclusion that the urgency provision under section 174 had not been validly resorted to
The High Court had remarked that the public purpose itself was vaguely stated although it could not in its opinion be challenged on that ground
As we have already indicated the purpose was sufficiently specified to be prima facie a legally valid purpose
We do not think that the vagueness of the purpose as stated in the notification under section 4 1  really affected the judgment of t he High Court so much as the absence of facts and circumstances which could possibly indicate that this purpose had neces sarily to be carried out in such a way as to exclude the application of section 5A of the Act
The High Court had rightly referred to the absence of any statement of circum stances which could have resulted in such urgency that no enquiry under section 5A of the Act could reasonably be held
The High Court had relied on the following passage from Barium Chemicals Ltd vs Company Law Board1  
An action not based on circumstances suggesting an inference of the enumerated kind will not be valid
In other words the enumeration of the inferences which may be drawn from the circumstances postulates the absence of a general discretion to go on a fishing expedi tion to find evidence
No doubt the formation of opinion is subjective but the existence of circumstances relevant to the inference as the sine qua non for action must be demon strable
If the action is questioned on the ground that no circumstances leading to an inference of the kind contem plated by the section exists the action might be exposed to interference unless the existence of the circumstances is made out 
Since the existence of circumstances  is a condition funda mental to the making of an opinion the existence of the circumstances if questioned has to be proved at least prima facie
It is not sufficient to assert that the circumstances 1  to 309 777 exist and give no clue to what they are because the circum stances must be such as lead to conclusions of certain definiteness
The High Court also cited the following passage from the judgment of Spens CJ in King Emperor vs Sibnath Banerjee1 which was relied upon on behalf of the State to contend that it was the duty of the petitioners to remove the effect of a recital in an order showing that conditions precedent to the exercise of a power had been fulfilled It is quite a different thing to question the accuracy of a recital contained in a duly authenticated order particularly where that recit al purports to state as a fact the carrying out of what I regard as a condition necessary to the valid making of that order
In the normal case the existence of such a recital in a duly authenticated order will in the absence of any evidence as to
its inaccuracy be accepted by a Court as establish ing that the necessary condition was fulfilled
The presence of the recital in the order will place a difficult burden on the detenu to produce admissi ble evidence sufficient to establish even a prima facie case that the recital is not accurate
If however in any case a detenu can produce admis sible evidence to that effect in my judgment the mere existence of the recital in the order cannot prevent the court considering such evidence and if it thinks fit coming to a conclusion that the recital is inaccurate
The High Court opined that the presumption of regularity attached to an order containing a technically correct recit al did not operate in cases in which section 106 Evidence Act was applicable as it was to the cases before us
We do not think that we can lay down such a broad general propo sition
An order or notification containing a recital technically correct on the face of it raises a presumption of fact under section 114 illustration e of the Evidence Act
The well known maxim of law on which the presumption found is illustration e to section 114 of Evidence Act is Omain prae sumunt ur rite esse acta ie all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done
This presumption however is one of fact
It is an optional presumption
It can be displaced by circumstances indicat ing that the power lodged in an authority or official has not been exercised in accordance with the law
We think that the original or stable onus land down by section 101 and section 102 of the Evidence Act can not be shifted by the use of section 106 of the Evidence Act although the particular onus of proving facts and circumstances lying especially within the knowledge of the official who formed the opinion which resulted in the notification under sec tion 174 of the Act rests upon that official
The recit al if it is not defective may obviate the need to look further
But there may be circumstances in the case which impel the Court to look beyond it
And at that stage section 106 Evidence Act can be invoked by the party assail ing an order or notification
It is most unsafe in such cases for the official or authority concerned to rest content with non disclosure of facts especially with 11944 ECR 1 at 42
778 in his or its knowledge by relying on the sufficiency of a recital
Such an attitude may itselfjustify Further judi cial scrutiny
In Sibnath Banerjee s case supra also facts which led an authority to pass a detention order could be said to lie especially within its knowledge
If there could be certain facts in Sibnath Banerjee s ease supra winch Sibnath Banerjee as well as the official making the order kneW it could similarly be urged that in the cases before us some facts could be known to both sides
We do not think that the principle laid down in Sibnath Banerjee s case supra can be circumvented by merely citing section 106 of the Evidence Act as the High Court did
We think that the total ity of circumstances has to be examined including the recitals to determine whether and to what extent each side had discharged its general or particular onus
It has been repeatedly laid down that the doctrine of onus of proof becomes unimportant when there is sufficient evidence before the Court to enable it to reach a particular conclusion
The principle of onus of proof  becomes important in cases of either paucity of evidence or in cases where evidence given by two sides is so equivalanced that the Court is unable to hold where the truth lay
In the cases before us if the total evidence from whichever side any of it may have come was insufficient to enable the petitioners to discharge their general or stable onus their petitions could not succeed
On the other hand if in addition to the bare assertions made by the petition ers that the urgency contemplated by section 174 did not exist there were other facts and circumstances including the failure of the State to indicate facts and  circum stances which it could have easily disclosed if they exist ed the petitioners could be held to have discharged their general onus
We think that the matter is not so simple as to capa ble of decision on an examination of a mere recital in the order or notification as was urged on behalf of the State of Maharashtra
Indeed even if a recital in a notifica tion is defective or does not contain the necessary state ment that the required conditions have been fulfilled evidence can be led to show that conditions precedent to the exercise of a power  have been actually fulfilled
This was clearly laid down by this Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mill s case supra where Wanchoo J speaking for the Constitution Bench of this Court said The difference between a case where a gener al order contains a recital on the face of it and one where it does not contain such a recital is that in the latter case the burden is thrown on the authority making the order to satisfy the Court by other means that the conditions precedent were fulfilled but in the former case the Court will presume the regularity of the order including the fulfilment of the conditions precedent and then it will be for the party challenging the legality of the order to show that the recital was not correct and that the conditions precedent were not in fact 779 complied with by the authority see the observa tions of Spens CJ in King Emperor vs Sibnath Banerjee1 which were approved by the Privy Coun cil in King Emperor vs Sibnath Banerjee2
This Court also said there Our conclusion therefore is that where certain conditions precedent have to be satisfied before a subordinate authority can pass an order be it executive or of the character of subordi nate legislation it is not necessary that the satisfaction of those conditions must be recited in the order itself unless the statute requires it though as we have already remarked it is most desirable that it should be so for in that case the presumption that the conditions were satisfied would immediately  arise and burden would be thrown on the person challenging the fact of satis faction to show that what is recited is not cor rect
But even where the recital is not there on the face of the order the order will not become illegal ab initio and only a further burden is thrown on the authority passing the order to satisfy the Court by other means that the condi tions precedent were complied with
In the present case this has been done by the filing of an affidavit before us
 It is also clear that even a technically correct recit al in an order or notification stating that the conditions precedent to the exercise of a power have been fulfilled may not debar the Court in a given case from considering the question whether in fact those conditions have been ful filled
And a fortiori the Court may consider red decide whether the authority concerned has applied its mind to really relevant facts
of a case with a view to determining that a condition precedent to the exercise of a power has been fulfilled
If it appears upon an examination of the totality of facts in the case that the power conferred has been exercised for an extraneous or irrelevant purpose or that the mind has not been applied at all to the real object or purpose of a power so that the result is that the exer cise of power could only serve some other or collateral object the Court will interfere
In Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State of UP  Ors
3 a Constitution bench of this Court held It is true that the opinion of the State Government which is a condition for the exercise of the power under section l 74 of the Act is subjec tive and a Court cannot normally enquire whether there were sufficient grounds or justification for the opinion formed by the State Government under section 174
The legal position has been explained by the Judicial Committee in King Emperor vs Shibnath Banerjee 72 1944FCR 142
21945FCR 195216 17
19671 SCR 373 at 381
234SC176 780 IA 241 and by this Court in a recent case Jaichand Lal Sethia vs State of West Bengal  Ors
Criminal Appeal No 110 of 1968 decided on July 1966 1966 Suppl
SCRBut even though the power of the State Government has been formulated under section 174 of the Act in subjective terms the expression of opinion of the State Government can be challenged as ultra vires in a Court of Law if it could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the
matter or that the action of the State Government is malafide If therefore in a case the land under acquisition is not actual ly waste or arable land but the State Government has formed the opinion that the provisions of sub s1 of section 17 are applicable the Court may legiti mately draw an inference that the State Government did not honestly form that opinion or that in forming that opinion the State Government did not apply its mind to the relevant facts bearing on the question at issue
It follows therefore that the notification of the State Government under section 174 of the Act directing that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply to the land is ultra vires
In Brahma Shah s case supra a condition precedent to the application of section 174 was held to be unsatisfied inasmuch as the land in respect of which the proceeding was taken was found to be forest land which could not be classified as arable or waste land
Learned counsel for the State relied strongly on the judgment of this Court in I G joshi Etc
vs State of Gujarat  Anr
1 where this Court had pointed out how in Sibnath Banerjee s case supra the initial burden of the petitioner arising from a prima facie correct order had been repelled by an affidavit filed by Mr Porter Additional Home Secretary on behalf of the State showing that the mind of the authority concerned had not been independently applied to the require ments of law but a routine order had apparently been passed on materials supplied by the Police
We have carefully considered the following observa tions made by this Court in I G Joshi s case supra after noticing facts of Sibnath Baner jee s case supra at p 278 The High Court having before it allega tions counter allegations and denials dealt first with the legal side of the matter
Then it readily accepted the affidavits on the side of Government
If it had reversed its approach it need not have embarked upon what was perhaps unnecessary an analysis of the many principles on which onus is distributed between rival parties and the tests on which subjective opinion as distin guished from an opinion as to the existence of a fact is held open to review in a court of law
As stated already there is a strong presumption of regularity of official acts and added thereto is the l 19682 SCR 267
781 prohibition contained in article 1662
was not called upon to answer the kind of affidavit which was filed with the petition because bare denial that Govt
had not formed an opinion could not raise an issue
Even if Govt
under advice offered to disclose how the matter was dealt with the issue did not change and it was only this
Whether any one at all formed an opinion and if hedid whether he had the necessary authority to do so
The High Court having accepted the affidavits that Raval and Jayaraman had formed the necessary opinion was only required to see if they had the competence
The High Court after dealing with many matters held that they had
In I G Joshi s case supra it appears to us that the principal round of attack on a notification was that it was not duly authenticated in accordance with the require ments of Article 166 and the Rules  of Business
The notification was held not to have been vitiated on the grounds on which it had been assailed
It was observed that the High Court after considering the evidence was satisfied on the evidence produced before it that the required opinion had been formed even though it was not necessary for the Government in view of the presumption of regularity attached to official acts
to produce anything more than the notification
We do not find that any of the matters placed before us  now was in issue there
On the other hand this
Court held on that occasion that the mere assertion of the petitioner that the Government had not formed an opinion about the need for action under section 174 of the Act could not raise an issue
We do not think that we need express any opinion here on the question whether such an assertion can or cannot even raise a triable issue
All we need say is that a triable issue did arise and was decided by the High Court in the cases now before us
This issue was whether the conditions precedent to exercise of power under section 174 had been fulfilled or not
We think that such a question can only be decided rightly after determining what was the nature of compliance with the conditions of section 174 required by the Act
We think that section 174 cannot be read in isolation from sections 41 and 5A of the Act
The immediate purpose of a notification under section 41  of the Act is to enable those who may have any objections to make to lodge them for purposes of an enquiry under section 5A of the Act
It is true that although only 30 days from the notification under section 41 are given for the filing of these objec tions under section 5A of the Act yet sometimes the pro ceedings under section 5A are unduly prolonged
But considering the nature of the objections which are capable of being successfully taken under section 5A it is diffi cult to see why the summary enquiry should not be concluded quite expeditiously
In View of the authorities of this Court the existence of what are prima facie public pur poses such as the one present in the cases before us cannot be successfully challenged at all by objectors
It is rare to find a case in which
objections to 782 the validity of a public purpose of an acquisition can even be stated in a form in which the challenge could succeed
Indeed questions relating to validity of the notification on the ground of malafides do not seem to US to be ordinari ly open in a summary enquiry under section 5A of the Act
Hence there seems to us to be little difficulty in completing enquiries contemplated by section 5A of the Act very expeditiously
Now the purpose of section 174 of the Act is obvi ously not merely to confine action under it to
waste and arable land but also to situations in which an inquiry under section 5A will serve no useful purpose or for some overriding reason it should be dispensed with
The mind of the Officer or authority concerned has to be applied to the question whether there is fan urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under section 5A of the Act should be eliminated
It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry under section 5A which has to be considered
Section 172 deals with a case in which an enquiry under section 5A of the Act could not possibly serve any useful purpose
Sudden change of the course of a river would leave no option if essential communications have to be maintained
It results in more or less indicating by an operation of natural physical forces beyond human control what land should be urgently taken possession of
Hence it offers no difficulty in applying section 174 in public interest
And the particulars of 
what is obviously to be done in public interest need not be concealed when its validity is questioned in a Court of justice
Other cases may raise questions involving consideration of facts which are especially within the knowledge of the authorities concerned
And if they do not discharge their special burden imposed by section 106 Evidence Act without even disclosing a sufficient reason for their abstention from disclosure they have to take the consequences which flow from the non production of the best evidence which could be produced on behalf of the State if its stand was correct
In the case before us the public purpose indicated is the development of an area for industrial and residential pur poses
This in itself on the face of it does not call for any such action barring exceptional circumstances as to make immediate possession without holding even a summary enquiry under section 5A of the Act imperative
On the other hand such schemes generally take sufficient period of time to enable at least summary inquiries under section 5A of the Act to be completed without any impediment whatso ever to the execution of the scheme
Therefore the very statement of the public purpose for which the land was to be acquired indicated the absence of such urgency on the apparent facts of the case as to require the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A of the Act
Again the uniform and set recital of a formula like a ritual or mantara apparently applied mechanically to every case itself indicated that the mind of the Commissioner concerned was only applied 783 to the question whether the land was waste or arable and whether its acquisition is urgently needed
Nothing beyond that seems to have been considered
The recital itself shows that the mind of the Commissioner was not applied at all to the question whether the urgency is of such a nature as to require elimination of the enquiry under section 5Aof the Act
If it was at least the notifications gave no inkling of it at all
On the other hand its literal mean ing was that nothing beyond matters stated there were con sidered
All schemes relating to development of industrial and residential areas must be urgent in the context of the country s need for increased production and more residential accommodation
Yet the very nature of such schemes of development does not appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary enquires under section 5A of the Act
There is no indication whatsoever in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the mind of the Commis sioner was applied
at all to the question whether it was a case necessitating the elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act
The recitals in the notifications on the other hand indicate that elimination of the enquiry under section 5A of the Act was treated as an automatic consequence of the opinion formed on other matters
The recital does not say at all that any opinion was formed on the need to dispense with the enquiry under section 5A of the Act
It is certainly a case in which  the recital was atleast defective
The burden therefore rested upon the State to remove the defect if possible by evidence to show that some exceptional circumstances which necessitated the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A of the Act and that the mind of the Commissioner was applied to this essen tial question
It seems to us that the High Court correctly applied the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act to place the burden upon the State to prove those special circumstances
although it also appears to us
that the High Court was not quite correct in stating its view in such a manner as to make it appear that some part of the initial burden of the petitioners under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act had been displaced by the failure of the State to discharge its duty under  section 106 of the Act
The correct way of putting it would have been to say that the failure of the State to produce the evidence of facts espe cially  within the knowledge of its officials which rested upon it under section 106 of the Evidence Act taken together with the attendant facts gnu circumstances includ ing the contents of recitals had enabled the petitioners to discharge their burdens under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act
We may also observe that if instead of prolonging litigation by appealing to this Court the State Government had ordered expeditious enquiries under section 5A of the Act or even afforded the petitioners some opportunity of being heard before acting under section 174 of the Act asking them to show cause why no enquiry under section 5A of the Act should take place at all the acquisition proceed ings need not have been held up so long
In fact we hope that the acquisition proceedings have not actually been held up
784 On the view we take of the cases before us we find no force in either the appeals by the owners of land or in those preferred by the State of Maharashtra
Consequently we dismiss all the nine appeals before us
The parties will bear their own costs
PBR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Certain lands were sought to be acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the public purpose stated being the development and utilisation of the lands as a residential and industrial area
Identical notifications under section 4 were issued in all the cases
In one group of lands declarations that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply in respect of the lands were issued under section 174
With respect to a second group declarations under section 174 were issued but were not fol lowed up with the section 6 notification
With respect to a third group no notification under section 174 was issued but after the petitioners filed objections the section 6 notifica tion was issued accompanied by the declaration of urgency under 8
174
The owners of the land sought to have the proceedings quashed on the grounds that 1 there was no public pur pose and that 2 there was no urgency justifying the notification under section 174 and dispensing with the enquiry under section 5A
The High Court held that 1 the notifications under section 41 were valid and that 2 the State had not discharged its burden of showing facts constituting the urgency which impelled it to issue the declarations under section 174 dis pensing with the enquiry under section 5A and therefore those declarations were invalid and that the parties were rele gated to the position they could take up in the absence of declarations under section 174
Both sides appealed to this Court
In the appeals by the State it was contended by the appellant State that the burden of proving that there was No urgency was on the owners of the lands
Dismissing all the appeals HELD 1 The notifications under 8
41 of the Act were valid in all the cases
769 G 2 a The rules regarding burden of proof are set out in the 
Section 101 of the Evi dence Act lays down that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist and section 102 provides that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side
Section 103 provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person
Section 106 lays down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him
Section 114 of the Evidence Act covers a wide range of presumptions of fact which can be used by the Courts in the course of administration of justice to remove lacunae in the chain of direct evidence before it
774 C E 775 C E b The result of a trial or proceeding is determined by a weighing of the totality of facts circumstances and presumptions operating in favour of one party as against those which may tilt the balance in favour of another
Such weighment always takes place at the end of a trial or pro ceeding which cannot for purposes of this final weighment be split up into disjointed and disconnected parts
What is weighed at the end is one totality against another and not 17 1234SCI76 764 selected bits or scraps of evidence against each other
Such total effect of evidence is determined at the end of a proceeding not merely by considering the general duties imposed by sections 101 and 102 but also by the special or par ticular ones imposed by other provisions such as sections 103 and 106
In judging whether a general or particular or special onus has been discharged the Court will not only consider the direct effect of the oral and documentary evidence led but also what may be indirectly inferred because certain facts have been proved or not proved though easily capable of proof if they existed at all and such proof of other facts may raise either a presumption of law or fact
The party against which a presumption may operate can and must lead the evidence to show why the presumption should not be given effect to
If the party which initiates the proceed ing or comes with a case to Court offers no evidence in support of it
the presumption is that such evidence does not exist and if some evidence is shown to exist on a ques tion in issue but the party which has it within its power to
produce it does not despite notice to do so produce it the natural presumption is that it would if produced have gone against it
Similarly a presumption arises from failure to discharge a special or particular onus
The doctrine of onus of proof becomes unimportant when there is sufficient evidence before the Court to enable it to reach a particular conclusion in favour of or against a party
The principle of onus of proof becomes important in cases of either paucity of evidence or where evidence given by two sides is so equivalenced that the Court is unable to hold where the truth lay
The question whether an onus probandi has been discharged is one of fact
Sufficiency of evidence to discharge the onus probandi is not examined by this Court as a rule in appeals by special leave granted under article 136 of the Constitution
but placing an onus where it did not lie may be
so examined in appropriate cases
775 H D G 778 C D 774 G Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co Ltd vs The State of UP  Ors  434 and Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs State of UP  Ors
 at 381 referred to
I G Joshi etc
vs State of Gujarat  anr
 held inapplicable
c Section 174 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be read with sections 41 and 5A of the Act
The immediate purpose of a notification under section 41 of the Act is to enable those who may have any objections to lodge them for purposes of an enquiry under section 5A
Considering the nature of the objections which are capable of being successfully taken under section 5A the enquiry should be concluded quite expedi tiously
The purpose of section 174 is obviously not merely to confine action under it to waste and arable land but also to situations in which an enquiry under section 5A will serve no useful purpose or for some overriding reason it should be dispensed with
The mind of the officer or authority con cerned has to be applied to the question whether there is an urgency of such a nature that even the summary proceedings under section 5A of the Act should be eliminated
It is not just the existence of an urgency but the need to dispense with an inquiry under section 5A which has to be considered
781 G H 782 d Even a technically correct recital in an order or notification stating that the conditions precedent to the exercise of a power have been fulfilled may not debar the Court in a given case from considering the question whether in fact those conditions have been fulfilled
And a fortiori the Court may consider and decide whether the authority concerned has applied its mind to really relevant facts of a case with a view to determining that a condition precedent to the exercise of a power has been fulfilled
If it appears upon an examination of the totality of facts in the case that the power conferred has been exercised for an extraneous or irrelevant purpose or that the mind has not been applied at all to the real object on purpose of a power so that the result is that the exercise of power could only serve some other or collateral object the Court will interfere
779 E F e The High Court was wrong in the present case in laying down a general proposition that the presumption of regularity attaching to an order containing a technically correct recital did not Operate in cases in which section 106 Evidence Act was applicable
An order or notification containing a recital technically correct on the face of it raises a presumption of fact under section 114 illustration 765 e That presumption is based on the maxim omain praesumun tur rite esse acta that is all acts are presumed to have been rightly and regularly done This presumption however is one of fact
It is an optional presumption which can be displaced by circumstances indicating that the power lodged in an authority or official has not been exercised in ac cordance with tile law
The totality of circumstances has to be examined including the recitals to determine whether and to what extent each side had discharged its general or particular onus
777 E F f The High Court had however correctly stated the limited grounds on which even a subjective opinion as to the existence of the need to take action under section 174 of the Act can be challenged namely main fides no application of mind and total want of material on which the opinion is formed
Therefore it is for the petitioner to substantiate the grounds of his challenge under sections 101 and 102
That is the
petitioner has to either lead evidence or show that some evidence has come from the other side to indicate that his challenge to a notification or order is made good
If he does not succeed in discharging that duty his petition will fail
776 B C In the present case in addition to the bare assertions of the owners of the land that the particular urgency contem plated by section 174 did not exist there were other facts and circumstances including non disclosure of any facts and circumstances which could easily justify the use of section 174 and which could have been disclosed if they existed and therefore the petitioners should be held to have discharged their general onus under section 101 of the Evidence Act
Thus the High Court was right in quashing the notifications under section 174778 E g In the present case the public purpose
was suffi ciently specified to he prima facie a legally valid purpose
The High Court thought it vague but that did not really affect the judgment of the High Court so much as the total absence of facts and circumstances which could possibly indicate that this purpose
necessarily to be carried out in such a way as to exclude the application of section 5A of the Act
Therefore a triable issue did arise in these cases and was decided by the High Court
This issue was whether the conditions precedent to exercise of power under section 174 had been fulfilled or not
Such a question can only be decided rightly after determining what was the nature of compliance with the conditions of section 174 re quired by the Act
776 D E i The public
purpose indicated is
the development of an area for industrial and residential purposes
This in itself did not make the taking of immediate possession imperative without holding even a summary enquiry under section 5A
On the other hand the execution of such schemes generally take sufficient period of time to enable at least summary inquiries under section 5A of the Act to be completed without any impediment to the execution of the scheme
ii All schemes relating to development of industrial and resi dential areas must be urgent in the context of the
coun try s need for increased production and more residential accommodation
Yet the very nature of such schemes of development does not appear to demand such emergent action as to eliminate summary enquiries under section 5A iii There is no indication whatsoever in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State that the mind of the Commissioner was applied at all to the question whether it was a case necessitating the elimination of the enquiry under section 5A
The recitals in the notification on the contrary indicate that elimination of the enquiry under section 5A was treated as an automatic consequence of the opinion formed on other matters
The recital does not say at all that any opinion was formed on the need to dispense with the enquiry under section 5A 782 G 783 C D The burden therefore rested upon the State to remove the defect if possible in recitals by evidence to show that some exceptional circumstances existed which necessi tated the elimination of an enquiry under section 5A and that the mind of the Commissioner was applied to this essential question
783 E h The High Court has thus correctly applied the provi sions of section 106 of the Evidence Act to place the burden upon the State to prove those special circumstances although the High Court was not quite correct in stating that 766 some part of the initial burden of the petitioners under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act had been displaced by the failure of the State to discharge its duty under section 106 of the Act
The correct way of putting it would have been to say that the failure of the State to produce the evidence of facts especially within the knowledge of its officials which rested upon it under section 106 of the Evidence Act taken together with other evidence and the attendant facts and circumstances including the contents of recitals had enabled the petitioners to discharge their burdens under sections 101 and 102 Of the Evidence Act in these particular cases
783 F G ARGUMENTS For the Appellant It was urged on behalf of the appellant State that the High Court was in error in placing the burden of proof on the State
Reliance was placed on the decision of the Su preme Court in  pages 432 433 and 434
In particular it was urged that where a statute prescribes something as a condition precedent for the exercise of statutory power and there is a recital of existence of that condition in the notification then it is presumed that the statutory condition exists and it is for the  other side to bring material before the Court to show that recital is not supported on any evidence or is made malafide
Similarly in  Raja Anands case the very scope of section 174 was discussed and the State relied on the observations at page 381 indicating the scope of judicial review original petitioners have not brought their case within the grounds mentioned in this case
The Barium Chemicals case and other cases cited can be easily distinguished on the ground that the statutory re quirements for the exercise of particular power for example under section 237 of the Companies Act are differently worded where certain circumstances are required to be present
The Land Acquisition Act does not require the existence of any such circumstances
Besides a decision of the Supreme Court has clearly indicated the scope of judi cial review in 967 1 SCR 373 and the respondents have not shown why any different view should not be taken
Cases like ILR 67 Gujarat 620 AIR 1964 Punjab 477 and ILR 1970 Cuttack 21 can be easily distinguished
There specific allegations were made by the petitioners giving reasons as to why they challenged the notifications
In reply thereto the State was bound to bring the material to negative those charges
In the present case if such allega tions were made by the writ petitioners the State would have certainly placed all the necessary materials to negative those allegations
In the absence of any such allegation the correct rule to apply was the one stated in   433
Apart from this it may be noticed that by amending paragraph XVI ARP was introduced which made some effort to make concrete allegations regarding the invalidity of the notification under section 174
The  substance of these allegations is that out of the whole area which is to be acquired urgency clause has been applied only to some areas and therefore petitioners prayed that an inference of  exercise of powers in a casual and lighthearted manner should be drawn
To this averment and since such concrete allegation was made a concrete reply has been given by the State in para 6 at Record Page 55 explaining why some lands were selected for urgency clause and why some notifications were issued earlier and why others came to be issued later
It is not open to
the respondents to enlarge their attack on grounds other than those which are stated in para
16A Lastly it was urged that the satisfaction under section 174 is not subjective satisfaction but must be an objec tive test because section 174 should be deemed to be controlled by section 17 sub sections 1 and 2
In the first place such a contention was never raised in the High Court
Secondly there are number of decisions of the Supreme Court where the opinion which is to be formed on section 174 is held to be subjective satisfaction
Thirdly 767 the contention does not interpret complete provisions of section 171 172 and 174
It is submitted under section 171 and 172 on one  hand and the power under 174 are two separate and independent powers which can be exercised at different stages of the Land Acquisition pro ceedings
Vide AIR 1970 Allahabad 151 Hakim singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh under 171 possession can be taken without there being an award under section 11 but there has to be a publication of a notice under section 91 and also a notification under section 6 preceded by an inquiry under section 5a
In such cases and the cases covered by 172 the urgency may be determined on an objec tive basis but the whole purpose of section 174 is to dispense with an enquiry under section 5a which is to be followed again by a notification under section 6 and for such a purpose all that is required is that in the case of any land in the opinion of the appropriate Government the provision of sub section 1 or sub section 2 are applica ble
In other words the lands must be either waste of arable lands which is of course to be determined objec tively but so far as the question of urgency is concerned it is the opinion that the Government has to form and that is not to be established by any objective test but its subjective satisfaction
For the Respondents The Appellant the State of Maharashtra tried to argue that lack of bonafides were not argued in the Court below
In the pleadings of the Respondents the writ petitioners it was urged at pages 10 and 11 of the record that in fact it is significant that in some cases the lands which are sought to be acquired for the same purpose vis a vis for development and utilisation of the land as industrial and residential area the urgency clause has not been applied
It was further stated at page 11 that the power under Section 174 has been exercised in casual and light heart ed manner 
without there being any proper application of mind to the condition requisite for the exercise of that _power
The said point was argued before the High Court and the High Court dealt with the same at pages 61 to 70 of the record
It was argued before this Honble Court that the circumstances under Section 174 is not subjective satis faction but an objective test since Section 174 is con trolled by Section 171 and 2
It was further argued that the Government never applied its mind nor did it place before the High Court any material to show that there was any urgency with respect to some of the lands and no urgency in respect to the others
It is admitted that the lands in all these cases were acquired for the same purpose inter alia for the development and utilisa tion of the said lands as an industrial and residential area
It was further argued that the burden of proof on the facts of these cases would be on the State since the reasons for urgency are only in the knowledge of the authority issuing the Notification
The cases cited by the Counsel for the State have no application since in those cases the petitioners could establish that the impugned notification was not bona fide
In this case the respondent land owners had in their Writ Petitions specifically raised the question that the authority had not applied its mind and treated it light heartedly and the Notification was not bona fide
The State however did not place any material before the Court to show that the authority had applied its mind or there was any clue to the urgency
The respondents have been deprived of their right to prefer objections under Section 5A of the Act and those objections are to be filed within 30 days
The notifications in this case have been made at the interval of months and even more than a year
The notification under Section 174 was made with respect to some lands and it was not made with respect to other
The State has not satisfactorily ex plained the reasons for this
From all these facts and circumstances the respondents argue that the notification under 768 Section 174 was not bonafide and the authority had not applied its mind and the High Court was right in setting aside the said notification