Case: Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. The State Of Bombay And Others

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this case, it is necessary to state the following facts. By a notification dated April 3, 1959, the first respondent, the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, stated that the lands specified in the schedule attached to the said notification were likely to be needed for the purposes of the third respondent, Messrs. Mukund Iron and Steel Works Ltd., a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and having its registered office at Kurla, Bombay No. 37, in the State of Maharashtra, for its factory buildings, etc. The notification further stated that under Cl. (c) of S. 3 of the Act, the Government was pleased to appoint the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the second respondent, to perform the functions of the Collector under S. 5A of the said Act. The land in which the petitioner, who is a citizen of India, claims to be interested as owner is included in the schedule aforesaid. The petitioner appeared before the second respondent aforesaid and after several adjournments lodged objections on June 9, 1959, and also made oral submissions through his Advocate on that date and the day following, and requested the second respondent to quash the proceedings on the ground that the lands contained in the notification were not required for any public purpose and that the proceedings were vexatious and malicious. It was further stated before the second respondent that the third respondent had negotiated by private treaty for the purchase of the notified area. The second respondent adjourned further hearing of the case in order to enable the petitioner and the third respondent to come to an amicable settlement. A further hearing took place before the second respondent on July 15, 1959. On that date the petitioner proposed to lead evidence of owners of several pieces of land included in the area notified for acquisition to prove that the lands included in the schedule to the notification were not as a matter of fact required by the third respondent for any public purpose and that the third respondent had even negotiated for the purchase of the said lands by private treaty; but the second respondent refused permission to lead such evidence on behalf of the petitioner3. The petitioner raises a number of questions of law attacking the constitutionality of the land acquisition proceedings and prays for orders or directions to the State Government not to give its consent to the aforesaid acquisition under S. 39 of the Act nor to enter into any agreement with the third respondent under S. 41 of the Act nor to issue a notification under S. 6 of the Act declaring that the land in question is needed for a public purpose, because after such a declaration the petitioner may be deprived of the opportunity of contending that the land was not needed for a public purpose4. The third respondent, through its Business Manager, has put in an affidavit in answer to the petitioners case and has contended that this writ petition is premature and not maintainable, that so far, only a notification under S. 4 of the Act has been issued and objections under S. 5A on behalf of the petitioner have been heard by the second respondent, that the State Government has yet to be satisfied as to whether the acquisition is for purposes specified in S. 40 of the Act and so long as the previous consent of the appropriate Government has not been given, the provisions of Ss. 6 to 37 of the Act cannot be put into operation. It is denied that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that the proceedings are vexatious or malicious. The third respondent does not admit that the second respondent refused permission to the petitioner to lead any evidence. The averments in the petition on the merits of the controversy are denied. It is stated on behalf of the third respondent that public are vitally interested in the production of this Company, the chief products being steel bars and rods which are in great public demand and are of such vital necessity to the country that their very production, distribution, supply and price are controlled by the Government. The products of the Company are consumed directly in bulk for public utility projects like dams, hydro-electric projects, roads, railways, industrial plants and housing projects, both in the public and private sectors, which constitute the core of the several five years plans of the Government. It is further stated that the Company (respondent No. 3) has included in its proposed industrial expansion projects to be established on the land sought to be acquired, extensive provisions for housing for a large number of employees families as also for their welfare by providing for parks, gardens, playgrounds, medical relief centre and similar other amenities for the welfare of the employees and their families. All those projects it is claimed on behalf of the third respondent, are a "highly commendable public purpose" which is far more advantageous to the community in general than to shareholders of the Company. It is further stated that the first respondent made a detailed investigation about the usefulness to the public of the expansion project of the Company including employees housing schemes and welfare projects and when it was satisfied about the bona fides of the respondent Company and the genuineness and urgency of their projects and their utility to the public that the first respondent published the notification under S. 4 of the Act on April 3, 19595. The affidavit sworn to by the second respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer, Thana, also questions the maintainability of the writ petition and generally supports the case sought to be made out by the third respondent. It is also stated on his behalf that the petitioner or any of the other persons interested in the land sought to be acquired did not produce any evidence and that it was absolutely incorrect to say that he prevented anyone from leading any evidence as alleged6. On these allegations and counter allegations the petitioner has moved this Court to exercise its powers under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the grounds that the notification under S. 4 of the Act is illegal, that the land acquisition proceedings are in violation of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution and that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and is mala fide.

Reasoning: Therefore even if the Act contemplated acquisition for a company which may or may not be for a public purpose, it would be saved by Art. 31(5) (a) as an existing lawFurther, though it may appear on the words of the Act contained in Part II, which contains the operative portions of the proceedings leading up to acquisition by the Collector that acquisition for a Company may or may not be for a public purpose, the provisions of Part VII make it clear that the appropriate Government cannot permit the bringing into operation in effective machinery of the Act unless it is satisfied as aforesaid, namely that the purpose of acquisition is to enable the Company to erect dwelling houses for workmen employed by it or for the provision of amenities directly connected with the Company or that the land is needed for construction of some work of public utility.These requirements indicate that the acquisition for a Company also is in substance for a public purpose inasmuch as it cannot be seriously contended that constructing dwelling houses, and providing amenities for the benefit of the workmen employed by it and construction of some work of public utility do not serve a public purpose.It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go into the question whether acquisition for a Company, even apart from the provisions of S. 40 will be for a public purpose, or justifiable under the provisions of the Act, even on the assumption that it will not serve a public purpose. The facts of the present case have not been investigated, as this Court was moved when only a notification under S. 4 of the Act had been issued; and the purpose of the acquisition in question was still at the enquiry stage. By S. 38A, which was inserted by the amending Act of 1933, it has been made clear that an industrial concern not being a Company, ordinarily employing not less than 100 workmen, may also take the advantage of land acquisition proceedings if the purpose of the acquisition is the same as is contemplated by S. 40 in respect of CompaniesIn an industrial concern employing a large number of workmen away from their homes it is a social necessity that there should be proper housing accommodation available for such workmen. Where a large section of the community is concerned, its welfare is a matter of public concern. Similarly, if a Company is generous enough to errect a hospital or a public reading room and library or an educational institution open to the public, it cannot be doubted that the work is one of public utility and comes within the provisions of the Act. We are not in possession of all the relevant facts in the present case as to the exact purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. That investigation was in progress when the petitioner moved this Court. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the application is premature is not wholly devoid of meritThe provisions of Art. 31(2) make it clear beyond all controversy that in order that property may be compulsorily acquired, the acquisition must be for a public purpose and by authority of law. But Art. 31(5) (a) lays down that nothing in cl. (2) shall affect the provisions of any existing law other than a law to which the provisions of cl. (6) applies (and the Act is obviously a law to which the provisions of cl. (6) do not apply).Therefore even if the Act contemplated acquisition for a company which may or may not be for a public purpose, it would be saved by Art. 31(5) (a) as an existinglaw.(See Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay, 1957 SCR 721 : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 521 )).Further, though it may appear on the words of the Act contained in Part II, which contains the operative portions of the proceedings leading up to acquisition by the Collector that acquisition for a Company may or may not be for a public purpose, the provisions of Part VII make it clear that the appropriate Government cannot permit the bringing into operation in effective machinery of the Act unless it is satisfied as aforesaid, namely that the purpose of acquisition is to enable the Company to erect dwelling houses for workmen employed by it or for the provision of amenities directly connected with the Company or that the land is needed for construction of some work of public utility.These requirements indicate that the acquisition for a Company also is in substance for a public purpose inasmuch as it cannot be seriously contended that constructing dwelling houses, and providing amenities for the benefit of the workmen employed by it and construction of some work of public utility do not serve a public purpose.It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go into the question whether acquisition for a Company, even apart from the provisions of S. 40 will be for a public purpose, or justifiable under the provisions of the Act, even on the assumption that it will not serve a public purpose. The facts of the present case have not been investigated, as this Court was moved when only a notification under S. 4 of the Act had been issued; and the purpose of the acquisition in question was still at the enquiry stage. By S. 38A, which was inserted by the amending Act of 1933, it has been made clear that an industrial concern not being a Company, ordinarily employing not less than 100 workmen, may also take the advantage of land acquisition proceedings if the purpose of the acquisition is the same as is contemplated by S. 40 in respect of. It has been recognised by this Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji, 1955-1 SCR 777  : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 41 ), that providing housing accommodation to the homeless is a public purpose.In an industrial concern employing a large number of workmen away from their homes it is a social necessity that there should be proper housing accommodation available for such workmen. Where a large section of the community is concerned, its welfare is a matter of public concern. Similarly, if a Company is generous enough to errect a hospital or a public reading room and library or an educational institution open to the public, it cannot be doubted that the work is one of public utility and comes within the provisions of the Act. We are not in possession of all the relevant facts in the present case as to the exact purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired. That investigation was in progress when the petitioner moved this Court. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the application is premature is not wholly devoid of meritIn our opinion, it is not absolutely necessary to the validity of the land acquisition proceedings that statement should find a place in the notification actually issued. The requirements of the law will be satisfied if, in substance, it is found on investigation, and the appropriate Government is satisfied as a result of the investigation that the land was needed for the purposes of the Company, which would amount to a public purpose under Part VII, as already indicatedThe absence from the notification under S. 4 aforesaid of those words, namely, for a public purpose, are fatal to the proceedings.The purpose of the notification under S. 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, if necessary digging or boring into the subsoil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under S. 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that land with proper description and so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. What was a mere proposal under S. 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition under the Act. Hence, it is not correct to say that any defect in the notification under S. 4 is fatal to the validity of the proceedings, particularly when the acquisition is for a Company and the purpose has to be investigated under S. 5A or S. 40 necessarily after the notification under S. 4 of the Act13. The other attack under Act 19(1) (f) of the Constitution is equally futile in view of the decision of this Court in 1955-1 SCR 777  : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 41 ) and 1957 SCR 721  : ( (S) AIR 1957 SC 521 ). Nothing was said with reference to the provisions of Art. 14 of the Constitution, though that Article has been referred to in the grounds in support of the writ petition.