Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Uday Mansuclal, challenged the acquisition of his land bearing No. PTS 122/171-A admeasuring 481 square meters at Jalandhar Beach, Diu, for construction of a government guest house. The acquisition was initiated by the tourism department of the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. The petitioner contended that there was no public purpose, as a guest house for government servants is not a tourism project, and that he was denied an opportunity of hearing under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court noted that the acquisition process began with a Social Impact Assessment Notification on 13 August 2021, followed by a Preliminary Notification on 6 December 2021 under Section 11(1), which invited objections within 60 days. The petitioner filed objections only on 30 March 2022, after the Declaration under Section 19(2) was published on 29 March 2022. The court held that since objections were not filed within the prescribed period, the petitioner could not complain of lack of hearing. On the issue of public purpose, the court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Manimegalai v. Special Tehsildar, AIR 2018 SC 2020, which held that public purpose is incapable of precise definition and each case must be considered on its own facts. The court found that the acquisition for a government guest house at a beach location, initiated by the tourism department, had a nexus with tourism and thus fell within the inclusive definition of public purpose under Section 2(1) of the 2013 Act. The court also noted that no mala fides were alleged and that the petitioner had not challenged any other procedural aspects. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Government Guest House - Section 2(1), Section 2(za) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The acquisition of land for construction of a government guest house at Jalandhar Beach, Diu, initiated by the tourism department, is for a public purpose. The definition of public purpose is inclusive and includes tourism. Even if used for government servants on duty, it serves public purpose. (Paras 12-15) B) Land Acquisition - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The petitioner failed to file objections within the 60-day period prescribed under Section 15. Objections were filed only after the declaration under Section 19(2) was published. Therefore, the petitioner cannot complain of lack of hearing. (Paras 9-11) C) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Judicial Review - The executive is the best judge to determine public purpose. The court will not interfere unless the purpose is colourable or mala fide. No mala fides were alleged. (Paras 13, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land for construction of a government guest house at Jalandhar Beach, Diu, is for a public purpose under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing under Section 15 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.
Law Points
- Public purpose is incapable of precise definition
- each case considered on its own facts
- acquisition for government guest house at a beach location has nexus with tourism
- objections filed after declaration under Section 19(2) cannot be considered
- no hearing required if objections not filed within 60-day period under Section 15
- definition of public purpose under Section 2(1) is inclusive.
