- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Charan Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Summary of Opinion — Agarwala, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, owner of plots nos. 11 and 10 Minjumla (described in the opinion as measuring 933 acres of garden land) in Mohalla Dewan Daya Ram, Gorakhpur city, was affected by a notification of the U.P. Government (No. 4221.XI—4-M-49 dated 28 June 1949) issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act declaring that 0.225 acres of the petitioner's land was needed for a public latrine. The petitioner filed an objection dated 26 July 1949 under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector inspected the site on 6 August 1949 in the presence of the parties but did not give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in support of his objections; the Collector then made a report to the State Government. The State Government issued a declaration under section 6 (published as notification No. 1220.XI-A—4M-49 dated 16 March 1950) that the land was required for public purpose. The petitioner applied for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government order and to bring up the record of Land Acquisition Case No. 174 dated 31 August 1950.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the declaration made by the State Government under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is vitiated by the Collector's failure to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in support of his objections under section 5-A.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain a challenge to a declaration under section 6(1) when that declaration is characterised as an administrative act.
- Whether the conclusiveness provided by section 6(3) (that a declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose) applies where the procedures under section 5-A have not been complied with.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner complained that he was not given an opportunity of being heard in support of his objections under section 5-A, and that therefore the Collector's report was without jurisdiction.
- On that basis the petitioner contended the State Government's declaration under section 6, made after taking the report into consideration, was also without jurisdiction and should be quashed.
State's Arguments
- The State argued the declaration was an administrative act and not judicial or quasi-judicial, and therefore not amenable to challenge under Article 226.
- The State contended that the opportunity given by the Collector was sufficient and that there was substantial compliance with statutory requirements.
- The State relied on the conclusiveness of a published declaration under section 6(3), arguing that once published it operates as conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and the Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bashir Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana | That the powers of Indian Courts under the Constitution are wider than prerogative writs alone; Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue to any person or authority "any directions, orders or writs". | Used to support the proposition that the High Court may interfere with administrative orders made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law or without jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first observed that it was unnecessary to classify the impugned acts strictly as judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative for the purpose of deciding the application. Even if the acts were administrative, they would be subject to interference if made in violation of mandatory statutory provisions and therefore without jurisdiction.
The court relied on the wider scope of Article 226 (drawing on Bashir Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana) to justify entertaining the petition despite the State's contention that the declaration was administrative in character. The court held that Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority, enabling review of administrative acts done in defiance of mandatory law.
On the facts, the court found that the Collector did not afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of being heard in support of his objections under section 5-A. The Collector had fixed a date only for inspection of the site (6 August 1949) and did not fix a subsequent date for the objector to lead evidence or make oral submissions; the Collector therefore failed to discharge the duty under section 5-A to give the objector an opportunity of being heard.
The court reasoned that the conclusiveness provided by section 6(3) (that a declaration is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purpose) presupposes that the declaration was made within jurisdiction after compliance with the requirements of section 5-A. Where section 5-A has not been complied with, the declaration is rendered without jurisdiction and the statutory conclusiveness does not attach to it.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The court quashed the declaration made by the State Government under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published as notification No. 1220.XI-A—4M-49 dated 16 March 1950. The writ was issued.
Implications:
- The immediate effect is that the State Government's declaration dated 16 March 1950 was set aside as being made without jurisdiction.
- The Collector is permitted to proceed afresh with the hearing of the petitioner's objections, but only after affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity of being heard in support of his objections under section 5-A.
- The opinion does not purport to announce any broader new precedent beyond its application to the present facts; its reasoning is confined to the consequence that statutory mandatory procedures must be followed for a section 6 declaration to acquire conclusiveness.
Agarwala, J.:— This is an application praying that writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued to the opposite party to bring up the record of the proceedings in the Land Acquisition Case No. 174 dated the 31st August 1950 and to quash the order of the Government dated the 16th March, 1950, notification No. 1220.XI-A—4M-49.
The petitioner is the owner of plots nos. 11 and 10 Minjumla measuring 933 acres of a garden land in Mohalla Dewan Daya Ram, Gorakhpur city. The U.P Government published Notification No. 4221.XI—4-M-49, dated 28th June 1949 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that 0.225 acres out of the petitioner's aforesaid land was needed for public purpose, viz. for the construction of a public latrine. The petitioner by means of an application dated the 26th July 1949 filed an objection before the Collector to the acquisition of the land upon various grounds which are not necessary to be detailed here. These objections were under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act which entitles a person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4(1), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose to object to the acquisition of the land within 30 days after the issue of the notification. The section further provides that:
“The Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such “further enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, submit the case for the decision of the Provincial Government, together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the Provincial Government on the objections shall be final.”
What the Collector did was that on receiving the objection he fixed a date for the inspection, of the site of the land in question. He inspected the locality in the presence of the parties on the 6th August 1949, but gave no opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in support of his objections. After making the inspection he made a report to the State Government which made a notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act to the effect that the land in dispute was required for public purpose. Section 6 of the Act provides,
“Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act (which deals with acquisition for companies), when the State Government is satisfied, after, considering the report, if any, made under section 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders.
(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the Provincial Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.”
If the declaration made under section 6 is a valid declaration, it is conclusive against the petitioner as against everybody else and no evidence can be led to prove that the land was needed for a public purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that as he was not given an opportunity of being heard in support of his objections, the report of the Collector was without jurisdiction and the declaration of the Government which was made after taking the report into consideration was also without jurisdiction and ought to be quashed.
The argument advanced on behalf of the State is to the effect that this declaration of the Government is an administrative act and is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial and, as such, cannot be questioned in this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, secondly, that the opportunity given to the petitioner was sufficient and there was substantial compliance with the provisions of law, and, thirdly, that the declaration having been published, whether rightly or wrongly, is conclusive evidence that, the land is needed for a public purpose, and, as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with it.
In the view that we take of the matter it is unnecessary to decide whether the act of the Collector or of the Government in this case was quasi-judicial or administrative. Even if it was an administrative act, if it was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act it was without jurisdiction. No doubt a writ of certiorari is issued in England in respect of judicial or quasi-judicial acts alone. But as observed by the Supreme Court in Bashir Ahmad v. Municipal Board, Kairana, , the powers of the Indian Courts under the Constitution “are much wider and are not confined to issuing prerogative writs only.” Article 226 empowers the High Court to issue to any person or authority “any directions, orders or writs”. This Court, therefore, has power to interfere even in the case of administrative orders which are made in defiance of mandatory provisions of law or without any jurisdiction.
There is no force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that sufficient opportunity was given by the Collector to the petitioner of being heard in support of his objections. No date was fixed for the objector to lead evidence in support of his objections or addressing oral submissions to the Collector. The Collector merely fixed a date for the inspection of the site. After inspection it was his duty to fix another date for hearing evidence and arguments. This was not done. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity of being heard in support of his objections.
The provisions of section 6(3) that the declaration under section 6(1) shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose is based upon the assumption that the declaration has been made within jurisdiction after complying with the provisions of section 5-A. Where the provisions of section 5-A have not been complied with, the declaration made by the State Government under section 6 is without jurisdiction and the conclusiveness provided for in section 6(3) does not attach to it.
We, therefore, quash the declaration made by the local Government under section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in its notification no. 1220.XI-A—4M-49 dated the 16th March 1950. It will be open to the Collector to proceed afresh with the hearing of the objections of the petitioner after affording him an adequate opportunity of being heard in support of his objections.
Writ issued.
Alert