PURAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification No. 47 4/47 HORT. SECTT, dated the 7th April, 1972, whereby the Government expressed its intention for acquisition of land for public purpose, namely for the construction of building at Naubahar, Simla 2. This notification was issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). The owners of the property are Sarvshri Gopal and Surinder sons of Shri Sehaj Ram, Radio Mechanic, Middle Bazar Simla. The petitioner claims himself to be a tenant of portion of the building. According to him he is running a canteen in a portion of the premises of the building for the last more than 9 years on payment of rent to its owners. The property has since been acquired and the owners have received compensation. The petitioner, it appears, has not been paid any compensation for his interest as an occupier of the premises. According to him, he raised objections to the said acquisition under Section 5 A of the Act. He had also pointed out therein that no public purpose for acquisition was made out in the notification under Section 4. The copy of the objections is Annexure B. The petitioner had also contended that before any award was made it was obligatory on the part of the Collector to have issued notice to the petitioner, who was an occupier of a portion of the premises and for failure of the Collector to issue a notice the acquisition proceedings were invalid. However, this objection has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. Therefore, the only attack that survives for consideration is the validity of the notification Annexure A, issued under Section 4 of the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the notice did not specify the purpose for which the property was acquired and as such the notification was illegal and was liable to be quashed, and support is sought to be derived from Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 337 = (AIR 1973 SC 1150).

(3.) THE expression "public purposes" has been defined under Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act and includes the provision of village sites in districts in which the appropriate Government shall have declared by notification in the official Gazette that it is customary for the Government to make such provision. "Public purpose" therefore, means a work from which the public can in any way derive benefit or any object or aim which may promote the public interest or which would result in an advantage to the public. The object of the notification under Section 4 is to make a public announcement of the fact that the land, is needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose in any locality and to enable the authorities to carry on preliminary investigation with a view to find out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if necessary digging or boring into the sub soil whether the land is adapted for the purposes for which it is sought to be acquired. The notification mentions the purpose as "for the constructing of building at Naubahar, Simla 2". Therefore, it cannot be said that this is not a public purpose or it is vague. Construction of a building by the Government pre supposes that it is likely to be utilised by the Government for office or residential accommodation for its officers. It cannot be taken to mean that the building which is to be constructed after the acquisition of the land will be utilised for some private purposes. Therefore, in my opinion, there does not appear to be any ambiguity in this notification so as to say that it does not disclose or satisfy the "public purposes". The object, as already stated, of a notification under Section 4 of the Act is to enable the persons authorised to carry out a preliminary investigation to find out whether the land is adapted for the purposes for which it is sought to be acquired. The land in question in the instant case is sought to be acquired for constructing building and therefore, it has to be ascertained after survey by the person clothed with the authority to enter upon the land after the issuance of the notification that the land is fit and suitable for construction purposes. Therefore, in my opinion, there does not appear to be anything wrong if it has not specifically been mentioned therein that it is being acquired for residential purposes. The very purpose of constructing building is for residential or for office purposes by the Government or for any other purposes connected with the governmental functions to be performed by its officers and servants.