hm IN THE HIGH CQURT CF JUDECATURE AT JABAL-PUR wan‘ pETITICN Naif” (J: _ g , 9F 1997. (WRIT PETITION UNDER AL{T1’CLE 226/227 OF TriE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) g WRIT PETITION'UNDE£ ARTICLE 226/227 (3F Tfjl;‘ CONSTITUTE rgiignnm PETITiONERs: 1.Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, A Sceiety registerec‘lunéer the provisg‘.ons of MJJ. Ccoperative Sonieties Act,1960, having it‘s v registered Office at Katcra Talab, Raipunnistrict, Raipur (1min). 2. Dr. Choithram Bajaj S/O Jethanand Bajaj, §ged amout 6O years, Resiélent of Kauora Talab, Raipur,Distt.a—aipur (MP). ‘ ,/Versus// RESFCNDENTg: Q _ 1. State o£ Madhya Pradesh V through Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhawan, EhOpal (MP). y/L The Collector, Raipur (Mp). 1:)5 Deputy Collects: V V (LandEXCquisition Officer), I / Raipur,Distt.Raipur (MP). HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5202 of 1997 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE. CONSTITIITION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri: J. Present: Shri B.D.Gu1u, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. ORDER 10RAL[ (Passed en 05 day of May, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.10.1997 (Annexure P/S) whereby the respondent No. 1 has declined to acquire the land for the use of petitioner society for construction of houses. ‘.’ 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitionervSociety made an application to the respondent No. 3 for initiating acquisition proceeding to acquire land for the.purpose of construction of houses for the people belonging to weaker section. The petitioner society purchased land from the private land owners through negotiations. However, land admeasuring 2.470 hectares of Patwari Circle No. 113 of village Purena,’ Tahsil and District .Raipur could not be purchased by the Society despite its best efforts. Therefore, the petitioner—society made an application to the respondent No. 3 for initiating proceedings for acquiring the said l, portion of the land. Accordingly, a notification dated 01.12.1990 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the PETITIONER : Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahakaxi Samiti Maryadit & Another. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others. \ \ the land owners by way of writ petltlon Ie 2416/1999 (Smt Harbans Kaur v State ofMP & Others) before the H1gh Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a case was registered as 4-A/1982 of 1991 for a wrlt petition being 2035/1992 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabaipur The High Court Vide order dated 08 03 1995 allowed the petition and directed the respondent No 3 to conSider the matter a fresh The respondent No 3 Vide communication dated 11 08 1997 forwarded a report to the State Government L under the pr0V1Sions of section 5(2) of the Act 1894 However ultimately Vide order dated 17 10 1997 (Annexure P/S) the permissron to acquire the land for the purpose ofpetitioner s0c1ety was rejected on the ground that acquisnion of the land for the Vsoc1ety does not fall Within the expreSSion public purpose Thus this petition On the other hand, Shn’ Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that admittedly, a notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published but thereafter no notification under section 6 0f the Act, 1894 was issued for the i ‘ 1 declined to acquire the land for the use of the petitioner—soc1ety The purpose for which the land is required for the petitioner- ‘ ‘ \ l j‘ \\ \ \ \ 3 C\\ society, does not fall within the definition of ‘public purpose’. Thus, the impugned order is just and proper. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is an admitted position that the land was to be acquired for the petitioner—Society which is engaged in construction of houses. After construction, the houses are sold to the private persons which is purely a commercial transaction and it does not involve any public interest. The petitioner has further not produced any document that prior approval was sought from the State Government before sponsoring the housing scheme. The decision of the State Government that acquiring the land for ’1 the purpose of a private cooperative society does not come within the definition of “public purpose” under the provisions of the Act, Ft 1869, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The petitioner society is a private cooperative society engaged in purchase of the land and construction of building for commercial purpose. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that the same was for the public purpose. ‘ \l By State amendments, the public purpose includes the provision 0f land for agricultural, residential, or incidental purpose and incidental thereto. Section 3(f) ofthe Act, 1894, reads as under: “ (f) the expression “public purpose” 1ncludes~ (z') the provision of villa e-sites, or the extensron, planned ‘deye opment or Improvement of ex1stmg Village-Sites; (ii) the provision of land for town or rural 4 planning; l ' 317i) evelopment the provision of land of land from for pu 11c lanned funds in ursuance of an scheme or policy of overnment an subsequent disposal 4 thereof in whole or in part by lease of securing further evelopment as planned; assignment or outright sale with the object (iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamitles, or to persons drsplaced implementatlon by Government, of any an I‘hcal scheme authority undertaken or a corporation owned or controlled by the State; i or affected by reason of the (vi) the provision of land for carryin out any educational, housing, health or s um clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by local authority, or a society re istered under the Societies Registration ct, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a co- operative society within the meaning of any lawirelating to. co-operative soc1et1es for the time being in force in any State; (vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or, with the prior approval'of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; i building (Vin) the or rov1sron locating ofany a pubgic remises office, or but does not include acquisition of land for Companies” 8. In Sooraram Pratap Reddy &Others v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & Others), wherein the land was acquired for a company, the Supreme Court while dealing with the term ‘public ’\\‘ 3 i purpose’ observed as under: ve 67. The wide expression amplitude}: ‘ ublic is merely purpose” illustrative is of an not exhaustive. The inclusive definition does not restrict its ambit and scope. Really, the expression is incapable of preciseand comprehensive definition. And 1t is neither desirable nor advisable to attempt to define it. It is used in‘ a generic sense of including any purpose wherein even a fraction of the community may be interested or by which it may be benefited.” 9. It was further observed as under: \x \ 1 s \ '(2008) 9 SCC 552 \ \Q\ 5 “119. In our judgment, in deciding Whether acquisition is for “public purpose” or not, rima facic, the, Government is the best Judge. Normally, in such matters, a writ court will not mterfere b substituting its judgment for the \ ju gment of the Governmen .” Amit 10. Thus, on bare reading of the word ‘public purpose’ as defined under section 3(f) of the Act, 1894, there is no contemplation of acquisition of land for a private society. Clause (vi) of section 3(f) of the Act provides for acquisition of land with prior approval of the appropriate Government, by local authority or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) which is engaged in implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or Corporation owned and controlled by the State is a public purpose. Under the said definition, the society has to be registered under the Central Act i.e. the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In the case on hand, the petitioner society is registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1960, which 'does not come within the definition of public purpose. Even by the State amendment, the same has not been included. 11. For the reasons and analysis, as aforestated, the writ petition is . dismissed. l2. There shall be no order asto costs.