Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Haryana for setting up a factory for manufacture of China-ware and Porcelain-ware including Wall Glazed Tiles at village Kasser, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. The appellants, landowners, challenged the acquisition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a writ petition, contending that the acquisition was for a company and should have been conducted under Part VII (Sections 38 to 44B) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that there was no urgency justifying invocation of Section 17 and dispensation of Section 5A, and that Section 17(2)(c) should be read ejusdem generis with clauses (a) and (b). The High Court dismissed the writ petition, leading to the present appeal by certificate. Chronologically, on 14/17 March 1969 the State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act, declaring that the land was likely to be required at public expense for a public purpose, namely setting up the factory, and directing that action under Section 17(2)(c) be taken on the ground of urgency, thereby dispensing with Section 5A. On 18 March 1969, a declaration under Section 6 was issued. Notices under Section 9 were served on 28 March 1969. The appellants filed their writ petition on 8 April 1969. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were: (i) whether the acquisition being for a company, proceedings should have been taken under Sections 38 to 44B, making the proceedings void; (ii) whether there was urgency justifying recourse to Section 17; and (iii) whether Section 17(2)(c) was inapplicable because it should be read ejusdem generis with clauses (a) and (b). The appellants argued that the acquisition was for the benefit of a company and hence Part VII had to be followed, that there was no urgency, and that Section 17(2)(c) had to be construed narrowly. The State countered that the Government of India had issued a letter of intent to a company for the project, that the State was lacking industries and facing unemployment, that the time for completing the project had been extended to 30 April 1969, making immediate acquisition necessary, and that the acquisition was at public expense and for a public purpose. The State also contended that Section 17(2)(c) was plain and unambiguous. The Court held that the purpose was a public purpose. Starting a new industry is in public interest, and the Government's declaration is not open to challenge unless it is shown to be for a collateral purpose or a colourable exercise of power. Since the State had contributed towards the cost of acquisition, it was not necessary to proceed under Part VII. On urgency, the Court found that the Government's conclusion of urgency was entitled to weight, if not conclusive, and on the facts there was urgency. On the ejusdem generis rule, the Court held that it could not be applied to Section 17(2)(c) because the provision is plain and unambiguous and the legislative intent is clear; clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 17(2) involve different authorities and different conditions. The Court referred to precedents including Somavanti v. State of Punjab, Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. State of U.P., State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, Lilavati Bai v. State of Bombay, and K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition and upholding the acquisition proceedings.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Government's declaration not open to challenge unless collateral purpose or colourable exercise of power - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4, 6 - Acquisition of land for setting up factory for manufacture of China-ware and Porcelain-ware was a public purpose; State contributed towards cost so proceedings need not be under Part VII (Sections 38 to 44B) - Held that starting an industry is in public interest and Government's decision is conclusive absent mala fide (Paras 1-8). B) Land Acquisition - Urgency and Dispensation of Section 5A - Government's conclusion of urgency entitled to weight - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 17(2)(c), 5A - Government of India extended time for project completion to April 30, 1969, making immediate acquisition necessary - Court upheld dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A - Held that urgency existed (Paras 1-8). C) Statutory Interpretation - Ejusdem Generis Rule - Not applicable to Section 17(2)(c) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 17(2)(a)-(c) - Clauses (a), (b), (c) operate under different authorities and conditions; provision is plain and unambiguous, so no resort to ejusdem generis to narrow scope - Held that clause (c) covers all cases where Government is of opinion that immediate possession is necessary (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether acquisition proceedings were void for not being under Sections 38 to 44B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; whether there was urgency justifying invocation of Section 17 dispensing with Section 5A; whether Section 17(2)(c) should be read ejusdem generis with clauses (a) and (b).
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition. The declaration of public purpose and urgency by the Government was not open to challenge in absence of collateral or colourable exercise of power. Section 17(2)(c) was applicable and ejusdem generis rule had no application.
Law Points
- public purpose declaration not open to challenge unless collateral or colourable
- government contribution to cost obviates Part VII proceedings
- urgency conclusion entitled to weight
- ejusdem generis cannot be applied to section 17(2)(c) because plain and unambiguous and clauses operate in different conditions
- starting an industry is in public interest
