FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusNIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI AND ANR.

A                   FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
                                           V.

                   NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI AND ANR.

                                  MARCH 7, 2002

B                [G.B. PATTANAJ.K AND BRIJESH KUM~R, JJ.]


          Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 17(1) and (4).

          LaniAcquisition-Urgency and emergency of-Dispensing with inquiry
C under· S.5-a--Government 's power-Held : the question of urgency of an
    acquisition under s.17(1) and (4) ofthe Act is a matter ofsubjective satisfaction
    ofthe Government-Ifthe Government is satisfied that there exists an emergency
    the same should not be lightly interfered with by the Court unless the authority
    has taken·the decision malafide--The burden ofestablishing malafide is very
D   heavy on· the person who alleges it.

          The appellant initiated acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification
    under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the suit
    premises ·which was under the occupation of the students of a Medical College.
    But the said notification was quashed by the High Court. A fresh notification
E   under Section 4 of the Act was again issued. The High Court quashed the
    seco~j notification also and directed that vacant possession of the premises
    be handed over within six months. Thereafter, a third notification was issued
    under Section 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act in respect of the same premises
    dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. The High Court quashed        ,__ __
    this notification also on the grounds that vacant possession of the premises
F
    not having been handed over the acquisition was malafide, that no grave
    urgency and emergency existed and, therefore, invocation of power under
    Section 17(4) got vitiated. Hence this appeal.

          On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the High Court ought
G   not to have interfered with the subjective satisfaction of the authority in the
    matter of urgency.       ·

          On behalf of the respondents it was contended that as the possession of _
    the premises was with the acquitting authority there existed no urgency and,
    therefore, exercise of power under Section 17 dispensing with inquiry under
H                                         326
          FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 1•. NIRODHI PRAKASH GANGOLI       327

 Section 5-A was patently erroneous.                                                 A
       Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD : l. l. The question of urgency of an acquisition under Section
 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a matter of subjective
 satisfaction of the Government and ordinarily it is not open to the Court to        B
 make a scrutiny of the propriety of that satisfaction on an objective appraisal
 of facts. When the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant
 consideration into account and is satisfied that there exists an emergency for
 invoking power under Section 17(1) and (4) of the Act, and issues a
 Notification accordingly, the same should not be interfered with by the Court
 unless the Court comes to the conclusion that the appropriate authority .had        C
 not applied its mind to the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken
 by the appropriate authority ma/a fide. Whether in a given situation there
 existed an urgency or not is left to the discretion and decision of the concerned
 authorities. If an order invoking the power under Section 17(4) is assailed,
 Courts may enquire whether the appropriate authority had all the relevant
 materials before it or whether the order has been passed by non-application         D
 of mind. Any post-Notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State
 Government dispensing with an inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking powers
 under Section 17(1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially
 when no ma/a fides on the part of the Government or its officers are alleged.
 Opinion of the State Government can be challenged in a Court of law if it           E
 could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the
 matter or that action of the State Government is ma/a fide. Though the
 satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and is not open to challenge
 before a Court of law, except for the grounds already indicated, but the said
 satisfaction must be of the appropriate Government and that the satisfaction
  must be as to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the Government        F
 that there was an urgency even though cannot be conclusive but is entitled to
 great weight. f352-A-EJ

        Jage Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1971) SC 1033,
  relied on.
                                                                                     G
        1.2. Even a mere allegation that the power was exercised ma/a fide would
  not be enough and in support of such an allegation specific materials should
' be placed before the Court. The ·burden of establishing ma/a fides is very heavy
  on the person who alleges it. 1332-E-G J

        2.1 Apart from the fact that there had already been considerable delay       H
    328                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2002) 2 S.C.R.

A in acquiring the premises in question on account of the intervention by the
    Court, the premises was badly needed for the occupation of the students of a
    Medical·College. Thus, existence of an urgency was writ large on the facts of
    the case and, therefore the said exercise of power in the case in hand, cannot
    be interfered with by a Court of law on a conclusion that there did not exist
B   any emergency. [333-A]

           2.2. Acquisition is not mala fide on the mere fact that physical possession
    had not been delivered pursuant .to the earlier directions of the High Cou'rt.
    When the Court is called upon to examine the question as to whether the
    acquisition is malafide or not, what is necessary to be inquired into and found
C   out is, whether that purpose for which the acquisition is going to be made, is
    a real purpose or a camouflage. By no stretch of imagination, exercise of
    power for acquisition can be held to be malajide, so long as the purpose of
    acquisition continues and there existed an emergency to acquire the premises
    in question. The premises, which was under the occupation of the students of
    a Medical College was obviously badly needed for the college and the
D   appropriate authority having failed in its attempts earlier twice, the orders
    having been quashed by the High Court, had taken the third attempt of issuing
    notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, such acquisition cannot
    be held to be malafide. (333-C-E]

          2.3. Even though the premises stood occupied by the students of a
E   Medical College, but such occupation was neither as owner nor was lawful
    in the eye.of law and, therefore, it is not possible to accept the respondent's
    contention that as the possession is with the acquiring authority exercise of
    power under Section 17 is patently erroneous. [334-B-C)                              ---4.,


          Ba/want Narayan Bhadge v. MD. Bhagw~t, [1976] 1 SCC 700, held
F
    inapplicable.

            CIVIL .APPELLATE JURISDICTION               Civil Appeal No. 1913 of
    2002.

G        From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2000 of the Kolkata High
    Court in G.A. No. 4573/99 in T.No. 1858/99 in A.P.O.T. No. 850 of 1999.

          Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok H. Desai, Bhaskar
    Guptas, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rajeev Sharma! Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ajay
    Sharma, G.K. Banerjee, Prateek Jalan, Sidharth Bhatnagar, N. Dube, Ms.
H   Indra Sawhney, Ranjan Dev, Ashish Chakravarty and Surendra Dube for the
   FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR i•. NIROOHI PRAKASHGANGOLI [PATTANAIK, J.] 329


appearing parties.                                                                   A
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

      The acquisition proceeding in respect of Premises No. 27 /l and 27 /B          B
on Dehi Serampore Road, Calcutta having been set aside by the Calcutta
High Court, the Land Acquisition Collector is in appeal against the same.
The premises in question had been requisitioned under the provisions of
West Bengal Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, for
accommodating students of Calcutta National Medical College, Calcutta by
order dated I 0th April, 1948. An acquisition proceeding in respect of the           C
same premises was initiated by issuance of a notice under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"), by Notification
dated 17.12.1982. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on
13.12.1989. The acquisition proceedings related to both the premises, as
aforesaid as well as a common passage. One K.K. Dugar and one AP Ganguly             D
claiming right of way on the common passage assailed the aforesaid acquisition
proceeding by filing a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court The learned
Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the Notification by order
dated 3rd April, 1992. The said order was assailed by filing an appeal to the
Division Bench, but the appeal itself being barred by time and the application
for condonation not having been allowed the appeal stood dismissed.                  E
      Subsequently a fresh Notification was issued under Section 4 only in
respect of the premises !'Jo. 27/la and 27/lb excluding the common passage
and notices were issued under Sections 9, I 0 and 11 of the Act requiring
interested persons to file application for compensation. Be it be stated, that
the premises in question stood de-requisitioned by an order dated 2.7.1993.          F
Writ Petition having been filed Challenging the notices issued under sections
9,10 and 11 was registered as Writ Petition No. 805 of 1994. The High Court
quashed the notices issued under Sections 9, I 0 & 11 of the Act by Order
dated 25.8.1994 and it was further directed that the vacant possession of the
disputed premises should be handed over within a period of six months. The           G
aforesaid Writ Petition had been filed by the owner of the premises in question.
Though time was extended by the Court for delivery of possession but it is
alleged that no possession had been delivered to the owner. On 29.11.1994
a fresh Notification was issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act for
the purpose of use of National Medical College. Declaration under Section
6 of the Act was issued on 30.8.1995. Public Notices of substance of the             H
    330                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A declaration was also given at the convenient places in the locality in two
  . daily newspapers published on 10.9.95. Notices under Sections 9 and 10 of
    the Act were served upon the interested persons on I 8. I 0.95 inviting claims
    by 2.11.95. The State Government sanctioned Rs. 50,4I,515 for paying the
    compensation amount. The Land Acquisition Collector issued notices under
    Section I I on 27.10.95 and the same was served upon the persons interested
B on 2.11.95. The aforesaid notice was assailed by filing a Writ Petition which
    was registered as Writ Petition No. I 900 of 1995 challenging the entire
    acquisition. The .learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court disposed of
    the Writ Petition by judgment dated 14.10. I 999, by holding that the
    Notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 as well as invocation of Section
C I 7(1) and 17(4) dispensing with hearing under Section 5A of the Act is not
    assailable. It, however, directed that the appropriate authority should proceed
    afresh from the stage of issuance of Notification under Section 9 and the
    acquisition proceeding should be completed with utmost expedition. Pursuant
    to the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, Notification under
    Section 9 of the Act was issued again on 15.10.1999. But the owners assailed
D the legality of the order of the learned Single Judge by filing an appeal to the
    Divisfon Bench. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by judgment
    dated 17.5.2000 having allowed the appeal and having quashed the acquisition       --
    proceeding, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has approached this Court.
    The Division Bench while disposing of the Writ Appeal by the impugned
E judgment have been persuaded to interfere, substantially on the ground that
    since the earlier judgment and direction of the learned Single Judge of Calcutta
    High Court dated 25.8.1994 directing delivery of the possession to the owner
    has not been complied with, the acquisition is ma/ajide and is not in accordance
    with law. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment came to hold that
    grave urgency and emergency being the pre-condition for invoking powers
F under sub-sections ( 1) and (4) of Section 17, and in the case in hand, no such
    urgency having been present, invocation of power under Section 17(4) gets
    vitiated and, therefore, the commencement of the acquisition proceeding must
    be held to be not in accordance with law. Having quashed the acquisition
    proceeding the Court further observed that it would be open to start a
G proceeding afresh in accordance with law.
          Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
    the appellant contended, that the purpose of acquisition being undoubtedly a
    public purpose, namely, for the use of National Medical College and the
    Competent Authority being of the opinion that the facts situation require
H   invocation of urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act, the Court in exercise
   FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. NIRODHI PRAKASHGANGOLI [PATTANAIK, J.J 331


of its extraordinary jurisdiction could not have interfered with the aforesaid        A
subjective satisfaction of the authority in the matter of urgency and, therefore,
the order is vitiated. The learned Additional Solicitor General further
contended, that non-delivery of possession, pursuant to the earlier direction
of the High Court, could not be a ground for quashing a valid Notification
issued under Sections 4(1) & 17(4) of the Act. The High Court, therefore,             B
committed serious error in interfering with the acquisition in question.
According to the learned Additional Solicitor General the conclusion of the
High Court that the acquisition is malafide is based upon non-existence of
any materials, and therefore, the same must be interfered with. In reply to the
submission of the counsel appearing for the respondents to the effect that the
object of invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 being to take immediate        C
possession of the acquired land and in the case in hand that possession being
with the Medical College ever since the premises stood requisitioned under
the provisions of requisition under West Bengal Act of 1947, the very pre-
 condition of attracting Section 17 was non existent, it is stated that the earlier
 possession was not the possession of a lawful owner and the Notification for         D
 acquisition having been quashed by the Court on two earlier occasions, the
acquiring authority felt the necessity of urgent acquisition, and therefore the
contention· of the respondents' counsel is unsustainable.

      Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the
respondent and Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing for              E
other respondents vehemently urged that in respect of a land which is under
possession of the State Government or any other authority, the emergency
power under Section 17 of the Act cannot be invoked inasmuch as the
legislature have conferred power to take possession of the acquired land even
without complying with the provision of Section SA of the Act only in case            F
of grave emergency where the acquisition cannot brook the delay of 30 days
period which is contemplated for filing of Petition under Section SA. This
being the position and the Medical College being in possession of the premises
right from 1948 the appropriate authorities coulc! not have invoked the
emergency_ provision under Section 17 of the Act. The counsel also further            G
urged that the right conferred under Section SA is a valuable right to the
owner and the owner should not be deprived of the same unless there exists
real emergency. It was further urged that the High Court was justified in
taking into account the defiant attitude of the Government in not delivering
possession notwithstanding the earlier orders of the Court directing possession
to be delivered within a period of six months.                                        H
     332                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A          The question of urgency of an acquisition under Section 17(1) and (4)
    of the Act is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Government and
    ordinarily it is not open to the Court to make a scrutiny of the propriety of      }--
    that satisfaction on an objective appraisal of facts. In this view of the matter
    when the Government takes a decision, taking all relevant considerations into
    account and is satisfied that there exists emergency for invoking powers
 B under Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act, and issues Notification accordingly,
    the same should not be interfered with by the Court unless the Court comes
    tc the conclusion that the appropriate authority had not applied its mind to
    the relevant factors or that the decision has been taken by the appropriate
    authority mala fide. Whether in a given situation there existed urgency or not
 C is left to the discretion ~nd decision of the concerned authorities. If an order    ,__,
    invoking power under Section 17(4) is assailed, the Courts may enquire               1

    whether the appropriate authority had all the relevant materials before it or
    whether the order has been passed by non-application of mind. Any post
    Notification delay subsequent to the decision of the State Government
    dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5(A) by invoking powers under
 D Section 17(1) of the Act would not invalidate the decision itself specially
    when no mala tides on the part of the government or its officers are alleged.
    Opinion 9f the State Government can be challenged in a Court of law if it
    could be shown that the State Government never applied its mind to the
    matter or that action of the State Government is mala fide. Though the
'E satisfaction under Section 17(4) is a subjective one and is not open to challenge
    before a Court of law, except for the grounds already indicated, but the said
    satisfaction must be of the Appropriate Government and that the satisfaction
    must be, as to the existence of an urgency. The conclusion of the Government
    that there was urgency even though cannot be conclusive but is entitled to
    great weight, as has been held by this Court in Jage Ram and Ors. v. The
 F State of Haryana and Ors., AIR (1971) Supreme Court 1033. Even a mere
    allegation that power was exercised mala fide would not be enough and in
    support of such allegation specific materials should be placed before the
    Court. The burden of establishing malajides is very heavy on the person who
    alleges it. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, if the circumstances of
 G the case in hand are examined it would appear that the premises in question
    was required for the students of National Medical College, Calcutta and the
   ·Notification issued in December 1982 had been quashed by the Court and the
    subsequent Notification issued on 25 .2.1994 also had been quashed by the
    Court. It is only thereafter the Notification was issued under Section 4(1) and
    17(4) of the Act on 29.11.1994 which came up for consideration before the
 H High Court. Apart from the fact that there had already been considerable
   FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. NIRODHI PRAKASHGANGOLI [PATT ANAIK, J.]   333
delay in acquiring the premises in question on account of the intervention by          A
Courts, the premises was badly needed for the occupation of the students of
National Medical College, Calcutta. Thus, existence of urgency was writ
large on the facts of the case and therefore, said exercise of power in the case
in hand, cannot be interfered with by a Court of law on a conclusion that
there did not exist any emergency. The conclusion of the Division Bench of             B
Calcutta High Court, therefore, is unsustainable.

      It is indeed difficult for us to uphold the conclusion of the Division
Bench that acquisition is ma/a fide on the mere fact that physical possession
had not been delivered pursuant to the earlier directions of a learned Single
Judge of Calcutta High Court dated 2S.8.94. When the Court is called upon C
to examine the question as to whether the acquisition is mala fide or not,
what is necessary to be inquired into and found out is, whether the purpose
for which the acquisition is going to be made, is a real purpose or a camouflage.
By no stretch of imagination, exercise of power for acquisition can be held
to be mala fide, so long as, the purpose of acquisition continues and as has
already been stated, there existed emergency to acquire the premises in D
question. The premises which was under occupation of the students of the
National Medical College, Calcutta, was obviously badly needed for the college
and the appropriate authority having failed in their attempt earlier twice, the
orders having been quashed by the High Court, had taken the third attempt
of issuing notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Act, such E
acquisition cannot be held to be mala fide and, therefore, the conclusion of
the Division Bench in the impugned judgment that the acquisition is mala
fide, must be set aside and we accordingly set aside the same.

      The arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that as the
premises in question continued to be under possession of the Calcutta Medical          F
College, invocation of special powers under Section 17 was vitiated and a
valuable right of the land owners to file objections under Section SA could
not have been taken away. According to the counsel for the respondents,
Section SA of the Act merely gives an opportunity to the land owner to
object to the acquisition within 30 days from the date of publication of the           G
notification under Section 4, the power under Section 17 dispensing with
inquiry under Section SA can, therefore, be invoked where there exists urgency
to take immediate possession of the land, but where possession is with the
acquiring authority, there cannot exist any urgency, and, therefore the exercise
of that power is patently erroneous. In support of this contention, reliance
was placed on the decision of this Court in Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. M.D.             H
     334                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Bhagwat and Ors., [1976) l SCC 700. We are unable to accept this contention
     since the same proceeds on a basic misconception about the possession of the
     premises. The premises in question had been requisitioned under the provisions
     of the Requisition Act and stood released from requisition by operation of
     Section lOB of the said Act, since 1993. Even though the premises stood
B    occupied by the students of the medical college, but such occupation was
     neither as owner nor was lawful in the eye of law. To effectuate lawful
     possession and the purpose being undoubtedly a public purpose, the State
     Government had been attempting ever-since December, 1982 and each of its
     attempt had failed on account of Court's intervention. It is in this context, the
     legality of exercise of power under Section 17 of the notification dated 29.11.94
.C   is required to be adjudicated upon. In our considered opinion, having regard
     to the facts and circumstances narrated above, the exercise of power under
     Section 17 by the State Government, cannot be held to be illegal or mala fide
     and consequently, the impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta
     High Court cannot be sustained. The learned Judges of the High Court have
D    been totally swayed away by the fact of non-implementation of the directions
     of Batabyal J, in his order dated 25.8.1994, but that by itself would not be
     a ground for annulling lawful exercise of power under the provisions of the
     Land Acquisition Act. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment of the
     Division Bench of Calcutta High Court and hold that the acquisition in question
     is not vitiated on any ground. The acquisition proceeding, therefore, is held
E    to be in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order
     as to costs.

     v.s.s.                                                         Appeal allowed.