GYAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Shrimati Gyan Devi widow of Bishan Swaroop Garg under Article 226 of the Constitution in an acquisition matter.

(2.) THE material facts leading up to this application may be briefly stated as follows. The dispute between the parties centres around certain agricultural lands bearing Khasra Nos. 49, 50 and 51 measuring 15 odd Bighas situated in village Durgapura, Tehsil Sanganer. The petitioner No. 1 Gyan Devi is the Khatedar of these lands as recorded in Khasra Girdawari Ex. A-2. It appears that there is a fgo-Sewa Sangh' which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act XXI of 1860) and has been functioning for some time at Sanganer. Respondent No. 3 Balwant Singh is its manager. The said Balwant Singh some time in 1959 made an application that agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 51 in village Durgapura belonged to one Bishan Swaroop deceased and that it was in the possession of a person named Bhonri Lal of Jaipur, this Bhonri Lal is petitioner No. 2 before us and is the Mukhtaraam of Gyandevi, and that the said Bishan Swaroop had left no legal heirs except his widow and that the latter was untraceable. It was submitted that the land bearing Khasra No 51 was situated close to the agricultural land of the Go Sewa Sangh and therefore it may be ordered to be made over to it. This matter was inquired into by the Additional Collector, Jaipur, and Balwant Singh's application was rejected after Bhonri Lal, Gyan Devi's Mukhtar had been examined. The Additional Collector found that Bishan Swaroop had not died heirless, that his widow Gyan Devi was still alive, that she had her ordinary residence in the city of Lucknow and that she had been recorded as Khatedar of the land in question. He was, therefore, of the opinion that the application made by Balwant Singh was frivolous and that the possession of the land could not be ordered to be made over to the Sangh as desired. He further added, however, that if and when the Go-Sewa Sangh applied for the compulsory acquisition of the land in question, necessary action would be taken. This report of the Additional Collector is dated the 3rd August, 1959. (Annexure A ). Thereafter some time in 1962 Balwant Singh again moved the Collector Jaipur and the Revenue Ministry of the State for acquisition of the lands in question under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, (Act No. XXIV of 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It may be pointed out here that the Go Sewa Sangh, inter alia, maintained a 'gaushala' and a cattle breeding centre for supplying quality cattle and milk and for distributing bulls for servicing in villages and allegedly concerned itself with the development of cattle wealth of the country in diverse ways. It was, therefore, represented to the Government that the Sangh wanted the lands in question for performing experiments in the growing of proper kinds of grass for the feeding of cows and & bulls maintained by it, and, therefore, the same may be acquired for the purposes of the Sangh. Consequently a notification under S. 4 of the Act (Annexure B) was issued, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated the 9th August, 1962. The petitioner's grievance is that this notice was not served on her as she was living at the material time in Lucknow. Thereafter a further notification under S. 6 of the Act (Annexure C) was issued having been published in the Rajasthan State Gazette dated the 29th November, 1962. According to the petitioner this was also not served on her for the same reason which we have pointed out before. Then a notification under S. 9 (3) of the Act came to be issued in the name of the petitioners on the 11 th January, 1963. On the 30th January, 1963, the petitioners filed their objections. These objections were to the effect that the notifications issued under sec. 4 and 6 of the Act were improper and illegal and further that there was no purpose for the acquisition of the lands in question and the same were sought to be acquired mala fide. As the enquiry under S. 11 pursuant to the notification under S. 9 was concerned with the determinntion of the compensation only, no enquiry into the validity of the aforesaid objections could be made and the Collector after recording the necessary evidence on the question of compensation made his award and fixed a sum of Rs. 1971/20 as compensation to be paid to the petitioners. The petitioners had in the meantime filed their writ application to this Court originally on the 7th March, 1963, and they preferred an amended application on the 18th April, 1963. Their prayer is that the notifications issued by the Government under secs. 4 and 6 of the Act and the further proceedings taken in consequence thereof be quashed and that the respondents be prohibited from acquiring the lands in question under the provisions of the Act. This application has been opposed by the respondents.

(3.) IT was brought to our notice by the learned Advocate General that under S. 6 (3) of the Act, a declaration made by the Government that a particular land was needed for a public purpose was conclusive evidence that the land was so needed or that it was needed for a company and, therefore, it was not open to the courts to go behind such a declaration. This argument is all right so far as it goes; but the law is well settled at this date that to this rule there is an exception and that exception is that if there is a colourable exercise of power by the State in the circumstances of a particular case, the declaration will be open to challenge at the instance of the aggrieved party, and, therefore, if it appears that what the Government is satisfied about is not a public purpose of its own but the purpose of a company, then the action of the Government would be colourable or mala fide and its declaration would be a nullity, and to such a declaration the protection of S. 6 (3) would not stand. Reference may be made in support of this proposition to the high authority of our own Supreme Court in Somawanti vs. State of Punjab.