Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioners have questioned the acquisition of their land in question measuring 63k 17M, interalia, on the grounds:- (i) having granted the permission to set up the school and the NOC being issued to set up the B.Ed. college and afterwards State cannot turn around and acquire the land for development of Industrial Model township to be developed as an Integrated complex for industrial, residential, recreational and other public utilities; (ii) the land in question though vacant but being reserved for future expansion will prejudice the future prospects of the educational 2 of 39 institution especially when the claim of planning/developing agency is that the land in question interferes merely in the proposed vehicle testing track which as per the petitioner does not constitute any public purpose and thus, same can be conveniently adjusted in the plan; (iii) recommendations having been made by the land Acquisition Collector u/s 5A of the 1894 Act to release the land, the State cannot proceed to acquire the said land; (iv) Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by referring to certain releases made by the State and setting up the plea of hostile discrimination on the part of the State.

15. As far as the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the Land Acquisition Collector having recommended in their favour for exemption of the land in question from acquisition and thus, the same could not have been acquired, Mr Mittal made his submission to the effect that the said argument being raised by the petitioners is meritless and requires to be rejected. He further argued that no doubt the law is more than settled that the stage of deciding the objections u/s 5A of 1894 Act is not a mere formality but requires objective consideration. It goes without saying that sub section (2) of Section 5 A of the 1894 Act casts an onerous obligation on the collector to consider the objections in a fair, impartial and dispassionate manner and to place the same before State Government for its decision which shall be final. The State Government is supposed to consider the same keeping in view all the relevant factors including the object for which the acquisition is being made. This would imply to take into consideration the objections/suggestions/recommendation of all the stake holders i.e., of the beneficiary department as well, on whose shoulders, the responsibilities lie to develop the land so as to achieve the public purpose which in the case in hand is HSIIDC andhas taken a categoric stand that the land in question is vacant which if released, would interfere in the planning i.e. proposed vehicle testing track, therefore, recommended to acquire the same. Accordingly, the State Government 9 of 39 decided to acquire the land in question which by any stretch of imagination cannot be held to be bad merely because the LAC had recommended for release of the land as this issue is no more res Integra that the report/recommendations made by the LAC are not binding on the state except the same are required to be considered while taking final decision. As against the argument raised by the petitioners that the land in question is required merely for testing track, Mr Mittal has argued that a holistic approach has to be adopted in such matters. The project for which the land in acquired should be taken as a whole and must be judged whether it is in the larger public interest. It can't be split into different components and to consider whether each and every component will serve public good. Public purpose cannot and should not be precisely defined and its scope and ambit be limited as far as acquisition of land for public purpose is concerned, therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to plead that since their land is required for merely a testing track, therefore, the same is not required to be judged on the touchstone of public purpose.

II. Whether the land in question though vacant but being reserved for future expansion and may prejudice the future prospectus of the educational institution especially when the claim of planning/developing agency is that the land in question interferes merely in the proposed vehicle testing track which as per the petitioner doesn't constitute any public purpose and thus, the same can be conveniently adjusted in the plan, could be a relevant consideration while deciding the validity of acquisition proceedings?

17 of 39 Issue No. (II)

25. Another ground on which, the petitioners have chosen to assail the acquisition proceedings is that the land in question even though is vacant but has been reserved for future expansion and setting up B.Ed. college and the acquisition may prejudice its future prospectus especially when, the land in question as per HSIIDC itself will merely effect the testing track which in the assessment of petitioners can't be said to be affecting the public purpose. We find ourselves unable to agree with these submissions made by the petitioners. In Somanvanti vs. State of Punjab (Supra), the Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that public purpose must include an object in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particulars of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned. Public purpose is bound to change with the times and the prevailing conditions in a given area and therefore, it would not be a practical proposition even to attempt an extensive definition of it. It is because of this reason, the Legislature has left it to the wisdom of State Government. Thus, undisputedly, State is the first judge to determine whether there exists public purpose or not though the said decision is not beyond judicial scrutiny. The Courts have the jurisdiction and it is their duty to determine the matter whenever a question is raised about the particular purpose being in the interest of public or not. The concept of "public purpose" was dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Daulat Singh Surana (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-