Rajiv Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others - Court Judgment

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17-10-1997 (Annexure P/5) whereby the respondent No.1 has declined to acquire the land for the use of petitioner society for construction of houses.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society made an application to the respondent No.3 for initiating acquisition proceedings to acquire land for the purpose of construction of houses for the people belonging to weaker section.

The petitioner society purchased land from the private land owners through negotiations. However, land admeasuring 2.470 hectares of Patwari Circle No.113 of village Purena, Tahsil and District Raipur could not be purchased by the Society despite its best efforts. Therefore, the petitioner-society made an application to the respondent No.3 for initiating proceedings for acquiring the said potion of land. accordingly, a notification dated 1-12-1990 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act, 1894’) was issued. The said notification was challenged by the land owners by way of writ petition i.e. 2416/1999 (Smt. Harbans Kaur v. State of M.P.) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a case was registered as 4-A/1982 of 1991 for acquisition of the land. However, the said proceeding was dropped on the instructions of the Collector, Raipur on the ground that the land cannot be acquired for the purpose of petitioner society. The petitioner society challenged the action of the Collector by way of a writ petition being 2035/1992 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court, vide order dated 8-3-1995, allowed the petition and directed the respondent No.3 to consider the matter afresh. The respondent No.3, vide communication dated 11-8-1997, forwarded a report to the State Government under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, 1894. However, ultimately, vide order dated 17-10-1997 (Annexure P/5), the permission to acquire the land for the purpose of petitioner society, was rejected on the ground that acquisition of the land for the society does not fall within the expression ‘public purpose’. Thus, this petition.

3. On the other hand, Shri Moorthy, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that admittedly, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 was published but thereafter, no notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued for the reason that the State Government, vide the impugned order declined to acquire the land for the use of the petitioner-society. the purpose for which the land is required for the petitioner-society, does not fall within the definition of ‘public purpose’. Thus, the impugned order is just and proper.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

5. It is an admitted position that the land was to be acquired for the petitioner-Society which is engaged in construction of houses. After construction, the houses are sold to the private person which is purely a commercial transaction and it does not involve any public interest. The petitioner has further not produced any document that prior approval was sought from the State Government before sponsoring the housing scheme.

6. The decision of the State Government that acquiring the land for the purpose of a private co-operative society does not come within the definition of “public purpose” under the provisions of the Act, 1869, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The petitioner society is a private co-operative society engaged in purchase of the land and construction of building for commercial purpose. By no stretch of imagination it can be held that the same was for the public purpose.

7. By State amendments, the public purpose includes the provision of land for agricultural, residential, or incidental purpose and incidental thereto. Section 3(f) of the Act, 1894, reads as under:

“(f) the expression “public purpose” includes-

(i) the provision of village-sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village-sites;

(ii) the provisions of land for town or rural planning;

(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned.

(iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State.

(v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State.

(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or under any corresponding law for the time being in force in a State, or a co-operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co-operative societies for the time being in force in any State;

(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government, or, with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority;

(viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for Companies”.

8. In Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District (2008) 9 SCC 552, wherein the land was acquired for a company, the Supreme Court while dealing with the term “public purpose” observed as under:

67. The expression “public purpose” is of very wide amplitude. It is merely illustrative and not exhaustive. The inclusive definition does not restrict its ambit and scope. Really, the expression is incapable of precide and comprehensive definition. And it is neither desirable nor advisable to attempt to define it. It is used in a generic sense of including any purpose wherein even a fraction of the community may be interested or by which it may be benefited.”

9. It was further observed as under:

“19. In our judgment, in deciding whether acquisition is for “public purpose” or not, prima facie, the Government is the best judge. Normally, in such matters, a writ Court will not interfere by substituting its judgment for the judgment of the Government.”

10. Thus, on bare reading of the words “public purpose” as defined under Section 3(f) of the Act, 1894, there is no contemplation of acquisition of land for a private society. Clause (vi) of Section 3(f) of the Act provides for acquisition of land with prior approval of the appropriate Government, by local authority or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) which is engaged in implementation of any scheme undertaken by the Government, any local authority or Corporation owned and controlled by the State is public purpose. Under the said definition, the society has to be registered under the Central Act i.e. the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In the case on hand, the petitioner society is registered under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1960, which does not come within the definition of public purpose. Even by the State amendment, the same has not been included.

11. For the reasons and analysis, as aforestated, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. There shall be no order as to costs.