SATRUGHNA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of Notification No. 3710-V-Ind-38/52i dated the 27th June 1953, of the Government of Orissa in the Industrial Department, and all subsequent notifications and actions taken by the State Government and the Land Acquisition officer, Cuttack, for the acquisition of the petitioner's lands described in the schedule attached to the petition, under the provisions of the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture, Capital Construction and Resettlement of displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act 1948 (Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 -hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The impugned notification may be quoted in full:

(2.) THE present application was filed on 14-5-1956, and several objections were raised therein against the proposed acquisition of the petitioner's lands. Some of them have now become untenable in view of the Validating Ordinance (Orissa ordinance No. 3 of 1957) and the Validating Act (Orissa Act XVII of 1957) passed by the State Legislature, validating all actions taken by the authorities concerned in the district of Cuttack, during the years 1954 and 1956 under the provisions of the Act. Hence, during the hearing of this application counsel for both sides confined their arguments to the validity or otherwise of the notification, dated 27-6-1953, quoted above which was not in any way affected either by the Validating Ordinance or the Validating Act.

(3.) AS is well-known, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act I of 1894) is a self-contained statute dealing with acquisition of land for public purposes. That Act contains provisions for acquiring lands for a company also. But part VII imposes certain restrictions on the acquisition of land for a company under the provisions of that Act. Section 40 (1) (b) expressly enjoins on the Government not to give consent to acquisition of land for a company unless it is satisfied that "such acquisition is needed for the construction of some work and that such work is likely to prove useful to the public". Some idea of what the Legislature meant by the expression "work likely to prove useful to the public" occurring in this clause may be gathered from the provisions of Section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act which says that an agreement should be entered into between the Government and the company, providing amongst other matters for the following: " (i) where the acquisition is for the purpose of erecting a dwelling house or for the provision of amenities connected therewith, the time within which, the conditions on which, and the manner in which the dwelling houses or amenities, shall be erected or provided; and (ii) where the acquisition is for the construction of any other work, the time within which, the conditions on which the works shall be executed and maintained, and the terms on which the public shall be entitled to use the work". Thus, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, land cannot be acquired for a company unless either of the aforesaid two conditions is fulfilled. In 1948 after the expiry of the Defence of India Rules, the only law relating to acquisition of land in force in Orissa was the Land Acquisition Act. The Legislature thought that there should be a special law dealing with acquisition for certain specified purpose, and hence passed the Act which came into force on 11-1-1949. The Statement of Objects and Reasons gives a clear idea as to why this special law was considered necessary and I am reproducing the same below in full: "statement of Objects and Reasons. It is felt that unusual delay is caused in the disposal of land acquisition cases under the existing procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act 1894, with the result that the execution of multipurpose hydroelectric projects is being hampered. It is therefore proposed to enact a special law for quick disposal of land acquisition cases, including taking possession of land and payment of compensation in projects of an urgent nature. Another object of enacting this special legislation is to limit the amount of compensation, which is to be paid, to a fair and reasonable amount which should exclude any element of speculation or profit due to unearned increment. Sd. S. Tripathy. Member-in-charge. "