VASUDEO PRASAD Vs. MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 29th June 1964 the Housing Commissioner and Secretary of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, Bhopal, addressed a letter to the Collector, Jabalpur, saying that in order to meet "the Housing requirement at Jabalpur, it is proposed to acquire 111.28 acres of land on Tripuri side of the Bhedaghat road at Jabalpur and the land would be developed into Housing plots and houses for providing the same to the public." The Collector was requested by the Housing Commissioner to take action for the acquisition of the aforesaid land. After receipt of this letter, the Collector made enquiries with regard to the area and location of the land which the Board desired to be acquired and on 16th January 1965 addressed a communication to the Government giving the details of the land proposed to be acquired, and estimated cost of acquisition, and requesting the Government to issue a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of acquisition of 111.28 acres of land of village Purwa, Survey No. 162, tahsil and district Jabalpur. Thereafter, a notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in respect of the land. The notification mentioned the purpose of acquisition as "for Housing Scheme."

(2.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners, who claim to have interest in different portions of the land proposed to be acquired, challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings and pray that Madhya Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1955 amending the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be struck down as a colourable piece of legislation. They also pray that the respondents be restrained from taking any proceedings for the acquisition of the land in question pursuant to the notification issued in 1965 under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(3.) IT was then submitted that the provisions of section 25 (2) of the M. P. Housing Board Act, 1950, giving to the Board power for the acquisition of any land required for the execution of a housing scheme in the manner provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were unconstitutional and bad as they did not answer the test of reasonableness under Article 19 (1) (f) and Article 19 (5) of the Constitution. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala (AIR 1960 SC 1080=(1960) 3 SCR 887). The short answer to this contention is that the law of acquisition and requisitioning of property is governed by Article 31 (2) and once property has been acquired or requisitioned, Article 19 (1) (f) has no application. In Kochuni's case relied on by learned counsel for the applicants, there was no question of an acquisition or requisition of property; the question involved there was merely the deprivation of property under Article 31 (1). Kockuni's case cannot, therefore, be regarded as an authority for the proposition that a law relating to acquisition or requisitioning of property must satisfy the test of Article 19 (1) (f). This has been made very clear by the Supreme Court itself in the case of Sitabati Devi v. State of West Bengal (Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1961 decided on the 1st December 1961.). That was a case in which the question of the validity of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, was considered. The validity of that Act was challenged on the ground that it violated Article 19 (1) (f). This attack resting on Article 19 (1) (f) was rejected by the Supreme Court. Sarkar J., who delivered the judgment of the Court, said:-