Case: Ram Sarup Vs. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh &amp; Others

The facts may be shortly stated2. By means of a notification dated April 19, 1949, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) it was notified for general information that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a public purpose. In the schedule the area was given as 117 Bighas and 9 Biswas. The schedule also contained the following :"For what purpose required.For the construction of residential quarters for the members of Aligarhe Housing Society Limited, Vishnupuri, Aligarh"3. In November 1951, an agreement was entered into between the Governor of U.P. and thee Housing Society Ltd., Vishnupuri, Aligarh, in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Act. On November 30, 1951, a notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act in which it was stated that the Governor after considering the report made under Section) of the Act was pleased to declare under Section 6 that he was satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule was needed for a public purpose. Under Section 7 the Collector was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. In the schedule the same words appeared as appeared in the notification under Section 4 viz. :"For what purpose required.For the construction of residential quarters for the members of the Aligarhe Housing Society Ltd., Vishnupuri, Aligarh4. On January 22, 1962, an award was given with regard to an area covering 27 Bighas oddIt appears that nine petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court challenging the acquisition made. Some of these petitions were heard by Mathur, J. who allowed them. The petition out of which this appeal has arisen was disposed of by Broome, J. and he dismissed it. An appeal was filed before the Division Bench but the same was dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
6. In our judgment the above decision is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. As already mentioned, in both the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is was clearly mentioned in the schedule that the purpose for which the acquisition was being made was the construction of residential quarters for the members ofe Housing Society Ltd., Vishnupuri, Aligarh7. The present case has greater similarity with the facts in a subsequent decision of this Court in State of West Bengal and Others. v. P. N. Talukdar and Others (AIR 1965 SC 646   : (1966) 1 SCJ 28.). There in the notification under Section 6 it was stated that the land was needed for a public purpose, namely for the construction of staff quarters, etc., of Ramakrishna Mission and was needed for that public purpose. It was held that the acquisition was for a society which was a company within the meaning of Section 3(c) of the Land acquisition Act and that the notification did indicate that the land was needed for a company though it did not say so in so many words. Reference was made there to the agreement which had been entered into between the company and the Government. In the present case also an agreement had been entered into and in view of the statements contained in the schedule in the notification we have no manner of doubt that the acquisition was clearly being made for a company. The view taken by Broome, J. for these reasons must be upheld8. Another point sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant was that the notification under Section 6 had been rescinded with regard to some of the areas and, therefore, there could be no acquisition of the area in question. Even in the writ petition no such contention or plea was raised nor was any proposition formulated in the terms in which it is sought to be urged before us. It raises not merely a pure question of law but also involves facts. It will have to be determined whether the details which are given in Para 10 of the special leave petition are factually correct. It is argued that these facts are apparent from the award which is already on the record. We are unable to allow such a point to be raised in this Court because it was not even raised in the writ petition.