Public purpose and urgency in land acquisition upheld; Section 17 applied, Section 5A excluded, and ejusdem generis did not limit Section 17(2)(c).

Industrial acquisition for a factory was treated as a public purpose, and the Section 6 declaration was upheld because no colourable exercise of power or collateral purpose was shown. Proceedings under Part VII were held unnecessary where the State had contributed to the acquisition cost, even though a company was involved in the project. Urgency was accepted on the circumstances, including the project timetable, so invocation of Section 17 and exclusion of Section 5A was valid. Section 17(2)(c) was also held not to be limited by ejusdem generis, because clauses (a), (b) and (c) operated in different fields and did not form a common genus.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose and whether the declaration under Section 6 could be questioned on the facts pleaded; (ii) Whether the State was bound to proceed under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the acquisition was for a company; (iii) Whether urgency existed so as to justify recourse to Section 17 and exclusion of Section 5A; (iv) Whether Section 17(2)(c) was confined by the principle of ejusdem generis to cases similar to those in Section 17(2)(a) and (b).

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition was for a public purpose and whether the declaration under Section 6 could be questioned on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: The acquisition was expressly notified as being at public expense for setting up an industrial factory. Industrialisation and establishment of a new industry were treated as matters of public interest. The declaration under Section 6 was conclusive evidence of public purpose unless a colourable exercise of power was shown. On the pleadings and material before the Court, no collateral purpose or lack of public purpose was established.

Conclusion: The acquisition was for a public purpose and the challenge to the declaration failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the State was bound to proceed under Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 because the acquisition was for a company.

Analysis: The record showed that the State had contributed to the cost of acquisition. In that situation, the acquisition could not be treated as one requiring proceedings under Part VII merely because the eventual industrial project involved a company.

Conclusion: Proceedings under Part VII were not necessary.

Issue (iii): Whether urgency existed so as to justify recourse to Section 17 and exclusion of Section 5A.

Analysis: The project time-limit had been extended only upto a near date, and immediate steps were needed to facilitate the project. The Court held that the existence of urgency was supported by the circumstances and that the administrative opinion on urgency was entitled to weight. On those facts, the State was justified in invoking Section 17 and dispensing with Section 5A.

Conclusion: Urgency was made out and the invocation of Section 17 was valid.

Issue (iv): Whether Section 17(2)(c) was confined by the principle of ejusdem generis to cases similar to those in Section 17(2)(a) and (b).

Analysis: The Court held that ejusdem generis applies only where there is a distinct genus formed by the specific words and where the statutory context requires a restricted meaning. Clauses (a), (b), and (c) operated in different fields, involved different authorities, and rested on different conditions. There was therefore no common genus that could limit the plain language of Section 17(2)(c).

Conclusion: Section 17(2)(c) was not confined by ejusdem generis and applied according to its plain terms.

Final Conclusion: All substantive challenges to the acquisition failed, and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly makes the Government's declaration conclusive as to public purpose and confers a power to dispense with ordinary acquisition safeguards on the formation of an opinion of urgency, that plain statutory language cannot be cut down by ejusdem generis unless the provision's context discloses a clear common genus.

---