SAMIRUDDIN SHEIKH Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to cancel or recall certain notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894).

(2.) THE facts briefly are that some residents of village Kanaichua, Mauza Rangamati, in the District of Darrang, made an application to the Sub -Divisional Officer of Mangaldai sometime in 1950 to acquire some lands belonging to the Petitioner for the purpose of construction of a village pathway. On receipt of the petition, there appears to have been some inspection of the locality made by a Sub -Deputy Collector and a report submitted by him. The Sub -divisional Magistrate, on a consideration of the report passed an order on 15 -2 -51, holding that the path was essential to the villagers and that a draft notification should be prepared for the purpose of acquiring the land. Subsequently, on the basis of that draft on 30 -5 -51, a notification was published the Assam Gazette. This notification was apparently under Section 4 of the Act. The Sub -divisional Magistrate thereafter directed local notices to issue as contemplated by Section 4(1) inviting claims and objections to the acquisition under Section 5A of the Act. The notification in the Assam Gazette referred to 3 cottas 3 lessas of land, more or less, situated within the boundaries therein mentioned in village Kanaichua, and it further stated that the land was acquired for public purpose, namely, a village path.

(3.) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the acquisition proceeding should be held to be null and void because there is no public purpose underlying the acquisition. It is not very clear from the petition as to whether the declaration contemplated by Section 6(1) of the Act has yet been made by the Provincial Government. Probably it has not been made so far; but even if it were, a declaration by Government under Section 6(1) of the Act that the acquisition is for a public purpose would be final and it would not be open to this Court to go into that question. It is primarily the satisfaction of the Provincial Government in the matter which counts. This is absolutely clear from Sub -section (3) of Section 6, which says that the said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. On this point, the decisions are unanimous, as they could not be otherwise. See - -'Suryanaryana v. Province of Madras' : A.I.R. 1945 Mad 394(FB)(A)' & - -'Brij Nath Sarin v. Uttar Pradesh Government' : AIR 1953 All 182(B). The notification under Section 4(1) shows that the land was needed for a village pathway, and we cannot hold to the contrary on the allegations made by the Petitioner, even If we intended to do so.