STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) My learned brother Wanchoo has set out the facts fully in his judgment and that relieves me of the necessity of stating them again.

(2.) The question that has arisen is whether a number of declarations under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be issued successively in respect of different pieces of lands included within the locality specified in a notification issued under S. 4 of the Act. My learned brother has said that Ss. 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act have to be read together and so read, the conclusion is clear that the Act contemplates only a single declaration under S. 6 in respect of a notification under S. 4. I so entirely agree with his reasonings for this view that I find it unnecessary to add anything to them. But it was said that there are other considerations which indicate that our reading of these sections is unsound. In this judgment I purpose to deal only with these considerations.

(3.) It was said that the Government may have difficulty in making the plan of its project complete at a time, particularly where the project is large and, therefore, it is necessary that it should have power to make a number of declarations under S. 6. I am wholly unable to accept this argument First, I do not think that a supposed difficulty would provide any justification for accepting an interpretation of a statute against the ordinary meaning of the language used in it. General considerations of the kind suggested cannot authorise a departure from the plain meaning of words. Secondly, I cannot imagine a Government, which has vest resources, not being able to make a complete plan of its project at a time. Indeed, I think when a plan is made, it is a complete plan. I should suppose that before the Government starts acquisition proceedings by the issue of a notification under S. 4, it has made its plan for otherwise it cannot state in the notification, as it has to do, that the land is likely to be needed. Even if it had not then completed its plan, it would have enough time before the making of a declaration under S. 6 to do so. I think, therefore, that the difficulty of the Government, even if there is one, does not lead to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the making of a number of declarations under S. 6. I would like to observe here to avoid confusion that we are not concerned now with extension of a completely planned project conceived later. The present contention is not based on any difficulty arising out of such a case. It was said that if the Government has not finalised its plan when it makes a declaration under S. 6, it would have a start fresh acquisition proceedings beginning with a notification under S. 4 to provide for the complete plan if it could not make any more declarations and in such a case, in conceivable circumstances, it may have to pay more for the land that it then sought to acquire. This argument concedes that even if the Government has not been able to make its plan when making a declaration under S. 6, the result is not that it cannot acquire any more land later when the plan is completed. The real point, therefore, of of the present argument is that the Act should be so interpreted that the Government should not be put to extra cost when it has been unable to complete its plan at a time. This seems to me to be a strange argument. First, there is no reason why the Act should provide for the Government's failure to complete the plan. Secondly, the argument is hypothetical for one does not know for sure whether a later acquisition will cost more or less. Arguments on hypothetical considerations can have little weight in interpreting statutes. But even otherwise, this view of the matter does not support the argument. After the issue of a notification under S. 4, an owner of land in the locality notified cannot have full beneficial enjoyment of his property; he cannot, for example, build on his land for if he does so and the land is acquired, he will get no compensation for the building put up and will lose the costs incurred for it. If it is a justification for saying that a number of declarations can be made under S. 6 because otherwise the Government may have to pay more, it seems to me that it is at least an equal justification for saying that such declarations cannot have been contemplated by the Act because that would mean an avoidable deprivation of the owners of their beneficial enjoyment of lands till such time as the Government is able to make its plan. As the Act is an expropriatory Act, that interpretation of it should be accepted which puts the least burden on the expropriated owner. The Government could, of course, always make a complete plan at a time and I am unable to hold that the Act contemplated that it need not do so and go on making declarations from time to time as its plan goes on taking shape even though the result might be to increase the hardship of persons whose lands are taken away.