Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In S.S. Darshan v. State oJKarnataJca and others , the Supreme Court was dealing with almost a similar situation where an Information technological park was to be set up. The acquisition was made by a company but it was held that the acquisition is for the public purpose of establishing of a technological park of national importance which is a Joint venture project involved three collaborators of Karnataka State. In the instant case from the records it appears that apart from the fact that the project in question has been considered as a joint venture of the Indian Oil Corporation as also the Central Government, the Indian Oil Corporation has been authorised to approach the State Government for acquiring of the land in question. In Collector, Ongole and anr. v. Narra Venkateswarlu and Qrs the acquisition for providing houses to the weaker sections to the society was considered to be a public purpose. In S.S. Darshan's case (supra) the Supreme Court held'ln the facts of that case upon taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the documents that setting up of the technological park by the Government of Karnataka through the said Board and acquisition of this additional area became necessary on account of the Inadequacy of the land acquired earlier under the Karnataka Act of 1966 is in public interest. In that case the Supreme Court had held that even the action of taking recourse to the provision of section 17 of the said Act could not have been assailed on the ground of mala fide. In Vosant kumar Radhkisan Vom v The Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay , the Supreme Court while considering question of promissory estoppel held that it is well settled legal position that the private Interest would always yield place to the public interest. As in the main writ application the petitioner had not taken any plea that the provisions of part VII of the Land Acquisition Act had not been complied with the said plea could not have been allowed to be taken in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Paschdnbanga Prathamlk Slkshak Stkshanprapts Bakar-o-Sikshak Samltl and others vs. President West Bengal Primary School Council and others reported in 1996(7) Sc 333. Even if such a plea is allowed to be raised, in my opinion, in view of the change in law by reason of Act No. 68 of 1984 the said plea has no force.