Colourable exercise of power in land acquisition can defeat public purpose finality when the State fails to disclose relevant material.

A land acquisition notification describing industrial development at Asansol was treated as sufficiently clear, since the law does not require the proposed projects or industries to be named in detail, and no prejudice from the Section 5A process was shown. But where the acquisition is specifically alleged to be a colourable exercise of power masking a private purpose, the State must fairly disclose the relevant material and answer the challenge directly; if it does not, the acquisition may not be sustained despite the usual finality attached to a declaration of public purpose.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notifications and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act were invalid for vagueness and for denying an effective objection under Section 5A; (ii) Whether the acquisition was vitiated as a colourable exercise of power for an undisclosed private purpose.

Issue (i): Whether the notifications and declaration under the Land Acquisition Act were invalid for vagueness and for denying an effective objection under Section 5A

Analysis: The notification stating that the land was needed for industrial development at Asansol was not vague merely because it did not specify the detailed projects or industries. A public purpose need not be elaborated in the notification to the point of naming every proposed undertaking. The record also did not establish that the appellant had asked for further particulars at the proper stage so as to show prejudice in the Section 5A objection.

Conclusion: This contention failed and the notification was not invalid on the ground of vagueness or denial of Section 5A rights.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquisition was vitiated as a colourable exercise of power for an undisclosed private purpose

Analysis: A declaration under the Land Acquisition Act is ordinarily conclusive as to public purpose, but that protection does not extend to a colourable exercise of power. Where a specific allegation is made that the apparent public purpose masks a private purpose, the State must place relevant material before the Court and answer the allegation fairly and directly. Here, the respondents did not disclose the specific basis of the acquisition and did not properly traverse the allegation, leaving the Court without material to test the legality of the acquisition.

Conclusion: The acquisition could not be sustained, as the challenge based on colourable exercise of power succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the order under challenge was set aside, and the Rule was made absolute because the respondents failed to justify the acquisition in the face of the specific allegation of misuse of power.

Ratio Decidendi: When a land acquisition is specifically impeached as a colourable exercise of power, the acquiring authority must fairly disclose the relevant facts and material within its knowledge, and failure to do so may justify judicial intervention notwithstanding the usual finality attached to the declaration of public purpose.

---