1966 (3) TMI 101 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds land acquisition notifications for public purpose, dismisses challenges on delegation and presidential assent.

Arnold Rodricks and Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The court dismissed the petitions challenging the validity of notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act, holding that the purpose specified for ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.2. Excessive delegation in Section 3(4) of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957.3. Abdication of legislative powers by the legislature in favor of the executive.4. Requirement of the President's assent under Articles 31(2) and 254 of the Constitution.5. Hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act.6. Colorable exercise of power in the declaration under Section 6.7. Validity of Section 3(f)(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Bombay.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the declarations under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act:The petitioners challenged the notifications dated March 30, 1962, and October 7, 1963, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that the purpose for which the lands were required was vague and not genuinely a public purpose. The court held that the purpose specified, 'development and utilization of the said lands as industrial and residential areas,' was indeed a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, even before the amendment by the Bombay Legislature. The court cited previous judgments (State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji) to support the notion that providing housing accommodation to the homeless is a public purpose.2. Excessive delegation in Section 3(4) of the Bombay Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1957:The petitioners argued that Section 3(4) of the Commissioners Act suffers from excessive delegation as it allows the State Government to amend essential features of the Land Acquisition Act. The court examined the legislative policy underlying the Commissioners Act and concluded that the delegation was not excessive. The court reasoned that the State Government, being in charge of administration, is in a better position to reorganize the administration by conferring appropriate duties on the Commissioners. The court upheld the validity of Section 3(4), stating that the legislature had not abdicated its functions but had laid down essential legislative policy.3. Abdication of legislative powers by the legislature in favor of the executive:The petitioners contended that Section 3(4) of the Commissioners Act amounted to an abdication of legislative powers in favor of the executive. The court disagreed, stating that the legislature had provided sufficient guidance in the Commissioners Act and had not abdicated its legislative functions. The court cited Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where a similar delegation of power was upheld.4. Requirement of the President's assent under Articles 31(2) and 254 of the Constitution:The petitioners argued that the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by a notification required the President's assent under Articles 31(2) and 254 of the Constitution. The court held that the assent of the President to the Commissioners Act was sufficient and that further assent for each notification was not necessary. The court cited Harishanker Bagla and Another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where a similar contention was repelled.5. Hearing under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act:In the second petition, the petitioner argued that no hearing was given under Section 5A of the Act. The court found that the petitioners had not raised any objections to the acquisition and had not requested a hearing. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 5A.6. Colorable exercise of power in the declaration under Section 6:The petitioner contended that the declaration under Section 6 was a colorable exercise of power. The court found no material to support this contention and held that the notifications were issued for a public purpose and not for any collateral object.7. Validity of Section 3(f)(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Bombay:The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 3(f)(2), arguing that it was not a public purpose. The court held that the purpose specified in the notifications, 'development and utilization of the said lands as industrial and residential areas,' was a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, even before the amendment by the Bombay Legislature. The court cited previous judgments to support this conclusion.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the notifications were valid and issued for a public purpose. The court found no force in the contentions raised by the petitioners, including the arguments regarding excessive delegation, abdication of legislative powers, and the requirement of the President's assent. The court also rejected the contentions regarding the hearing under Section 5A and the colorable exercise of power in the declaration under Section 6.