Case: National Thermal Power Corpn.Ltd Vs. Mahesh Dutta

the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting a higher value. 35. Furthermore the Collector under the Act was acting as a statutory authority. When possession has been shown to have been taken over not only in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act but also by grant of the certificate and other documents, illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872, must be held to be applicable. Once such a presumption is drawn the burden would be on the State to prove the contra. The burden of proof could be discharged only by adducing clear and cogent evidence. Not only the aforementioned documents but even the judicial records clearly show that the possession had in fact been taken. 36. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, however, made an alternative submission before us that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India, may issue necessary directions so as to put a quietus to the entire matter. This Court cannot foresee all the eventualities. 37. However, before us Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, when questioned, categorically stated that in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, the positive case of the respondents is that they had not been in possession. If the aforementioned statement made by the respondents is found to be incorrect, legal steps as is permissible in law may be taken. Furthermore, if the respondents and/or any other person are found to be in possession of the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition in terms of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, appropriate steps for eviction therefor can be initiated. It goes without saying that the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh shall render all cooperation to the appellant in this behalf. 38. It is furthermore neither in doubt nor in dispute that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the appellant was for setting up of a thermal power station. It had to be shifted to another site only because the Central Government asked it to do so keeping in view the ecological perspective in mind. It is, therefore, permissible for the appellant to put the land in question which has vested in it for another purpose which would come within the purview of any public purpose as has been noticed by this Court in Khatri (supra) and for any other purpose as has been noticed by this Court in Keerwani Ammal (Supra) Yet again in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 335] , this Court has held: 12. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land. In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant Company. In Ravi Khullar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 231] , it was contended: 16. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that having regard to the authorities on the subject the question is no longer res integra. It is not as if lands acquired for a particular public purpose cannot be utilised for another public purpose. He contended that as long as the acquisition is not held to be mala fide, the acquisition cannot be invalidated merely because the lands which at one time were proposed to be utilised for a particular public purpose, were later either in whole or in part, utilised for some other purpose, though a public purpose. He, therefore, submitted that some change of user of the land, as long as it has a public purpose, would not invalidate the acquisition proceeding which is otherwise valid and legal. It was held: 23. Referring to the facts of the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the planned development of Delhi for which purpose the land was acquired under Section 4 of the Act is wide enough to include the development and expansion of an airport within the city of Delhi. Thus it cannot be said that the land is actually being utilised for any purpose other than that for which it was acquired. The only difference is that whereas initially the development work would have been undertaken by DDA or any other agency employed by it, after the constitution of IAAI, the said development work had to be undertaken by the newly constituted authority. Thus there has been no change of purpose of the acquisition. All that has happened is that the development work is undertaken by another agency since constituted, which is entrusted with the special task of maintenance of airports. Since the said authority was constituted several years after the issuance of the notification under Section 4, the acquisition cannot be invalidated only on the ground that the public purpose is sought to be achieved through another agency. This, as we have noticed earlier, was necessitated by change of circumstances in view of the creation of the authority i.e. IAAI. Moreover, since there is no change of public purpose for which the acquired land is being utilised, the acquisition cannot be invalidated on that ground. The purpose for which the lands are being utilized by a governmental agency is also a public purpose and as we have noticed earlier, would come within the ambit of the public purpose declared in Section 4 notification. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be challenged on the ground that the acquired lands are not being utilised for the declared public purpose. Having regard to the facts of the case it cannot be contended, nor has it been contended, that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued mala fide.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]32. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was correct in its view35. Furthermore the Collector under the Act was acting as a statutory authority. When possession has been shown to have been taken over not only in terms ofn (1) of Section 17 of the Act but also by grant of the certificate and other documents, illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872, must be held to be applicable. Once such a presumption is drawn the burden would be on the State to prove the contra. The burden of proof could be discharged only by adducing clear and cogent evidenceNot only the aforementioned documents but even the judicial records clearly show that the possession had in fact been taken36. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, however, made an alternative submission before us that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India, may issue necessary directions so as to put a quietus to the entire matter. This Court cannot foresee all the eventualities37. However, before us Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, when questioned, categorically stated that in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, the positive case of the respondents is that they had not been in possessionIf the aforementioned statement made by the respondents is found to be incorrect, legal steps as is permissible in law may be taken. Furthermore, if the respondents and/or any other person are found to be in possession of the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition in terms of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, appropriate steps for eviction therefor can be initiated. It goes without saying that the authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh shall render all cooperation to the appellant in this behalf38. It is furthermore neither in doubt nor in dispute that the initiation of the acquisition proceedings at the instance of the appellant was for setting up of a thermal power station. It had to be shifted to another site only because the Central Government asked it to do so keeping in view the ecological perspective in mind. It is, therefore, permissible for the appellant to put the land in question which has vested in it for another purpose which would come within the purview of any public purpose as has been noticed by this Court in Khatri (supra) and for any other purpose as has been noticed by this Court in Keerwani Ammal (Supra)Yet again in Kasturi & Ors. v. State of Haryana [(2003) 1 SCC 335] , this Court has held:12. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings for resumption of the land. In our view, there arises no question of any unjust enrichment to the appellant CompanyIn Ravi Khullar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 231] , it was contended:16. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that having regard to the authorities on the subject the question is no longer res integra. It is not as if lands acquired for a particular public purpose cannot be utilised for another public purpose. He contended that as long as the acquisition is not held to be mala fide, the acquisition cannot be invalidated merely because the lands which at one time were proposed to be utilised for a particular public purpose, were later either in whole or in part, utilised for some other purpose, though a public purpose. He, therefore, submitted that some change of user of the land, as long as it has a public purpose, would not invalidate the acquisition proceeding which is otherwise valid and legal23. Referring to the facts of the instant case, it cannot be disputed that the planned development of Delhi for which purpose the land was acquired under Section 4 of the Act is wide enough to include the development and expansion of an airport within the city of Delhi. Thus it cannot be said that the land is actually being utilised for any purpose other than that for which it was acquired. The only difference is that whereas initially the development work would have been undertaken by DDA or any other agency employed by it, after the constitution of IAAI, the said development work had to be undertaken by the newly constituted authority. Thus there has been no change of purpose of the acquisition. All that has happened is that the development work is undertaken by another agency since constituted, which is entrusted with the special task of maintenance of airports. Since the said authority was constituted several years after the issuance of the notification under Section 4, the acquisition cannot be invalidated only on the ground that the public purpose is sought to be achieved through another agency. This, as we have noticed earlier, was necessitated by change of circumstances in view of the creation of the authority i.e. IAAI. Moreover, since there is no change of public purpose for which the acquired land is being utilised, the acquisition cannot be invalidated on that ground. The purpose for which the lands are being utilized by a governmental agency is also a public purpose and as we have noticed earlier, would come within the ambit of the public purpose declared in Section 4 notification. Therefore, the acquisition cannot be challenged on the ground that the acquired lands are not being utilised for the declared public purpose. Having regard to the facts of the case it cannot be contended, nor has it been contended, that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued mala fide.