N. VARADAPPA NAICKER Vs. STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the judgment of Kailasam, J., in W.P. No. 918 of 1966, which related to the acquisition of certain lands of the petitioner (appellant) in S.P. Nos. 72 and 82 in S. No. 145 of Vehyoor Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, for the declared public purpose of an extension to a Harijan Colony. In seeking the interference of this Court in exercise of its powers in writ jurisdiction, the petitioner (Appellant) affirmed in an affidavit that (1) the acquisition was not a 'public purpose' within the meaning of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (2) that it was an infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, and (3) that, in any event, the acquisition was mala fide, being a colourable exercise of power the land was not :suitable for the public purpose, as it was lower in level than the existing colony, and separated therefrom by a channel. There were alternative sites that were even more suitable for the same purpose, and extraneous and irrelevant factors had influenced the authorities in the initiation of proceedings. The learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) was of the view that there was not a single tenable ground upon which the proceedings of acquisition could be fairly impugned. In effect he dismissed the writ proceeding in limine.

(2.) WE have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, who has attempted to persuade us into admitting this appeal and we are equally unable to see any valid basis for a conceivable interference in writ jurisdiction. As is well known, the exercise of the power of Eminent Domain by the State is a discretion vested in the State, which has to be used bona fide and in the public interest. But once that decision has been taken it is not the province of the Courts to canvass the purpose of the acquisition, as a ' public purpose ' or otherwise, unless prima facie, there is some strong ground for holding that the particular acquisition is outside the power of Eminent Domain.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has pressed before us the difference in levels between the proposed site and the existing colony, and also the availability of alternative sites. These matters were before the authorities, in the form of objections urged by the party at stage of the enquiry under Section 5 -A of the Act and, presumably", they have been fully considered. The authorities, have been satisfied, after such consideration, that it is essential to acquire the land of the petitioner for the purpose of the Marijan Colony It is indisputable that these lands, practically adjoin the existing colony, with only a channel separating them, and we must assume that if alternative sites elsewhere had been more suitable, the authorities would have decided differently. On these grounds there is no room for interference.