A.V. Jayabalakrishnan and Others vs The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

K.A. Swami, C.J.—These appeals are preferred against a common order dt.24.1.1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos.

7660 and 7661 of 1986 respectively. The learned single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions. Hence the Petitioners therein have come up

by way of these appeals.

In these appeals, the Appellants will be referred to as Petitioners and Respondents as Respondents in the writ petitions. The Petitioners sought

for quashing the acquisition of the lands bearing Survey No. 328/2, measuring 1.96 acres in Annur Village and Survey No. 328/2, measuring 1.97

acres also of the aforesaid village. The aforesaid lands hereinafter referred to as the lands in question, had been acquired for the location of a

depot-cum-workshop for the Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking.

Before the learned single judge, the Petitioners put forth the following grounds:

(1) that as the acquisition was for Cheran Transport Corporation, it could have been made only under part II of the Land Acquisition Act

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and such a decision for the acquisition under Part II of the Act should have been taken even at the stage of

issuance of a preliminary notification.

(2) that there were several alternative Government sites available, and as such, the lands in question were not needed for the purpose for which

they were acquired;

(3) that the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act was not published in the locality as required under the Act and the Rules made thereunder; and

(4) that by reason of the acquisition of a portion of the land comprised in S. No. 328/2 the Petitioner in W.P.7661/86 is deprived of her enjoyment

of the remaining portion because no access is available to the remaining portion of the land as a result of the acquisition.

The learned single judge had negatived all the aforesaid contentions. The very same contentions are put forth before us. Therefore, we deal with

those contentions in seriatim.

The notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act no doubt recites that it is for the purpose of location of depot-cum-workshop for the Cheran

Transport Corporation Limited. But neither a part of the compensation is contributed by the State Government nor the provisions contained in Part

II of the Act are followed. Therefore, it is contended that the acquisition proceeding is vitiated. It may be pointed out here that the definition of the

expression ''public purpose'' as contained in the Act, as it stood prior to Act 68 of 1984, which was in force in the State of Tamil Nadu was as

follows:

the expression ''public purpose'' includes the provision of village sites in districts in which the appropriate Government shall have declared by

notification in the Official Gazette that it is customary for the Government to make such provision.

It is settled law that the definition of ''public purpose'' as it stood in the aforesaid terms, was only an inclusive definition and it was not an exhaustive

one. Therefore, in each case it was required to be decided whether, the purpose for which the acquisition was made was a public purpose. In the

instant case, it is not in dispute that Cheran Transport Corporation Limited, though registered as a Company under the Companies Act, is wholly

owned by the State Government. Therefore, the interest of the Corporation and the interest of the State Government cannot be held to be

different. As such, the acquisition in question can be construed as the one for the purpose of State Government. That being so, it goes without

saying that it is for a public purpose. If that be so, there was no question of going through the formalities contained in Part II of the Act.

Accordingly, the State Government did not go through the formalities contained in Part II of the Act. These circumstances also would go to show

that the State Government intended to acquire the lands in question for a public purpose only.

4.1. This now takes us to the next question as to whether the compensation can be held to have been paid out of the public revenue. By the time

the Declaration u/s 6(1) of the Act came-to be issued, the Act 68 of 1984 came into force on 24.8.1984, by which Section 6 of the Act came to

be amended and Explanations 1 and 2 came to be added. The first Explanation inserted by the amendment is not relevant for our purpose.

Explanation 2 is relevant for our purpose, which reads as follows:

Explanation 2: Where the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a Corporation, owned Br controlled by

the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.

In the Declaration issued u/s 6(1) of the Act, it was specifically mentioned in the Declaration that the compensation was to be paid out of the funds

of the Cheran Transport Corporation, which was Government owned Corporation and the funds of which were controlled by the State

Government. Therefore, the declaration made u/s 6 of the Act, as amended by the Central Act 68 of 1984 was quite in conformity with the

provisions contained therein. Even otherwise, it may also be pointed out that Section 6(i) of the Act, as it stood before the amending Act 68 of

1984 came into force contained the following proviso:

Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or

wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority.

It is this proviso which has been interpreted in Smt. Somavanti and Others Vs. The State of Punjab and Others, , wherein it has been held that the

decision as to the payment of compensation can be taken even at the stage of issuance of Section 6 Declaration or subsequent thereto. If that be

so, ""we do not see any reason to hold that the acquisition is vitiated because the compensation has to be paid gut of the funds of the Corporation.

As pointed out above, the payment out of the funds of the Corporation would amount to payment out of public revenue because, the funds of the

Corporation are controlled by the State Government, as the Corporation itself is owned by the State Government. Hence, the first contention is

rejected.

The alternative sites pleaded by the Petitioners are not Government sites and they are temple lands. If that be so, it is not possible to hold that in

spite of availability of Government sites, the State Government has proposed to acquire the lands of private citizens. Hence, this contention is

rejected. However, the said temple lands are found to be not suitable. It is not brought to our notice, as to how, and in what manner, the

publication of the substance of the notification, as required by Section 4(1) of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, in, the locality has not been

complied with. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this contention. As far as the last contention is concerned, it is a matter for claiming

compensation for the deprivation of the use and occupation of the remaining portion of the land, by reason of acquisition of a portion of the land

forming part of S. No. 328/2, thereby blocking access to the remaining portion of the land. We therefore keep this contention open, reserving the

right of the Petitioner to claim appropriate compensation in the award proceedings.

For the reasons stated above, the Writ Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.