METRO THEATRE BOMBAY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging S.4 notification issued under the Land Acquisition, Act, 1894 (hereinafter "the Act") in respect of Metro Theatre at Bombay. The challenge is on various grounds, particularly on grounds of mala fides, grounds of colourable exercise of powers, of hostile discrimination and want of authority etc.

(2.) Before I deal with the facts, I must deal with the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Desai, who appears for the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India (i.e. respondents 1,2 and 3). Firstly, he contends that this petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners will have a chance to object to the said acquisition when objections are heard under S.5A of the Act and before S.6 notification is issued. The second objection is that the petition contains several disputed questions of facts. Thirdly, he submits that in the petition there are number of allegations made against the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter "the RBI".) and that the RBI has not been made a party to this petition.

(3.) As regards the first of objection of Mr. Desai, I must say that he was not clear in his submissions. At one stage he gave me an impression that he would concede that even S.4 notification could be challenged on the ground of mala fides; at another stage he seemed to assert that the petitioners could challenge acquisition only after S.6 notification is issued. Whatever it may be. Since objections have been raised, I must deal with. Firstly, I must say that there cannot be any blanket proposition that under no circumstances S.4 notification can be challenged. Secondly, it has been held that if a writ petitioner is in a position to establish conclusively that even at the time of the objections of the notification under S.4 of the Act. there was no public purpose or the same is contended as mala fide, there is no bar to such a petition : Radhey Sham Gupta v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1982 Punj and Har, p. 519 (FB) and also Gopal Innani v. State of A.P., reported in AIR 1982 Andh Pra 474). In a recent case of Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1622, the Supreme Court while dealing with a case at the stage of S.4(1) notification expressly held :