THE COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR.versusNARRA VENKATESWARLU AND ORS.

A                  THE COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR.
                                           v.
                    NARRA VENKATESWARLU AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 28, 1995

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1896-Section-4(1)-Public purpose-Acquisi-
    tion of land only for weaker sections of society-Constitutes a 'public purpose'.

C         A notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, was
    quashed by a Single Judge in writ proceedings on the ground of colourable
    exercise of power by the authorities. On appeal, the Divison Bench af-
    firmed the order on the ground of non-application of mind by the Collector
    himself, since the acquisition was made by him on the recommendation
    made by the Government and further that the administrative instructions
D   for obtaining prior permission from the Government for making the award
    when the value exceeds Rs. 20,000 per acre were not obtained. These
    appeals by special leave had been filed against the judgment of the High
    Court.

E        The appellant contended that the notification validly issued by the
    Collector who is the competent authority to issue notification u/s 4(1) of
    the Act, cannot be whittled down by the non-consideration of the ad-
    ministrative instructions issued by the Government nor absence of prior
    approval is a ground to d~clare the valid notification as jnvalid one.

F         The respondents contended that attempts were made by the Sar-
    panch to get the property by successive litigations and that the Collector
    in a cryptic order had mentioned that the land could be acquired for
                                                                                       -·
    weaker sections without any proposal for acquiring the land for weaker
    sections and therefore, exercise of power u/s 4(1) was a colourable exercise
G   of power vested in the Collector.

          Allowing the appeals, this Court

          HELD : 1.1. The notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act,
    1896, was published by the Collector for acquiring the land for the weaker
H   sections. The Collector bad been empowered to acquire the land for the
                                          764
..             COLLECTOR, ONGOLE v. NARRA VENKATESWARLU                       765

      weaker sections, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Initially there A
      was an attempt by the Sarpanch to have the land acquired for Housing Co-
      operative Society. Since the members of the Cooperative society belonged
      to the forward sections of the society, the land could not be acquired. The
      Colle~tor also did not accede to that request. The Tahsildar suggested to
      acquire some another land but that was not accepted by the Joint Collector.
      The file had gone to the Collector and ultimately the Government had B
      accepted the proposal to acquire the land in question for the weaker sec-
      tions. Some of the persons to whom the allotment was to be made belonged
      to the forward sections of the society but that does not take away the initial
      exercise of the power by the Collector, who is the competent authority to
      exercise the power under s. 4(1) of the Act. The notification does indicate c
      that the land was acquired for public purpose, namely, providing houses to
      the weaker sections of the society . Even the recommendations made by the
      Government after the protracted litigation were for acquiring the land for
      weaker sections. Thus the acquisition being only for the weaker sections of
      the society, it constitutes a "public purpose" as defined under the Act by
      virtue of the local amendment made to s. 17(1) of the Act. [767-D-G]           D

             1.2. The collector had formed the opinion that the land was required
      for public purpose, namely, providing houses to the weaker sections of the
      society. The question of non-application of mind did not arise. After
      consideration of the material before the Collector, he formed the opinion E
      that the land was required for public purpose. The direction of the Govern-
      ment was after protracted litigation and to avoid further litigation,
      Government had directed to acquire the land. It would not mean that the
      Collector had abdicated his power under s.4(1). The Government had
      issued instructions for obtaining prior permission of the. Government, if
      the value of the land was more than Rs. 20,000 per acre, the prior F
      permission of the Government in that behalf is necessary. The administra-
      tive instructions, no doubt, bind the subordinates but the violation thereof
      does not con~titute an infirmity in the acquisition of the land itself. The
      Government could take appropriate disciplinary action against the offi-
      cials but it did not constitute infirmity in the valid exercise of the power G
      under s.4(1) and declaration under s.6 of the Act. [768-A-D]


            1.3. When the Government had directed the Collector to consider the
      acquisil..on for weaker sections and the Collector had validly exercised the
      power under s.4(1) of the Act, it could not be said that it was a colourable   H
...
    766                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A ·exercise of power. If any allotment was made to any person other than those
    belonging to the weaker sections, the Collector should take immediate
    action against these persons and cancel the allotments. Allotments should
    be made only to the persons belonging to the weaker sections in terms of
    the notifications and Government instructions in that behalf. [768-F-G]

B         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1135-36
    of 1986.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 9.8.85 of the Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. Nos. 302-303 of 1985.

C         T.V.S.N. Chari for the Appellants.

          R.N. Keshwani for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

D       These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order of
  the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated August 8,
  1985, made in Writ Appeal Nos. 302-03of1985. A notification under s.4(1)
  of the Land Acquisition Act was initially published on April 15, 1983. The
  same was subsequently withdrawn and fresh notification was published on
  June 9, 1983. The respondents challenged the validity of the notification in
E two writ petitions. The learned single Judge by his order dated February
  1, 1985 quashed the notification on the ground of colourable exercise of
  power by the authorities. On appeal before the Division Bench, one of the
  learned Judges upheld the order of the learned single Judge on the ground
  of non-application of mind by the Collector himself, since the acquisition
  was made by the Collector on the recommendation made by the Govern-
F ment. The second ground was that the administrative instructions for
  obtaining prior permission from the Government for .making the award
  when the value exceeds Rs. 20,000 per acre were not obtained. Another
  learned Judge has affirmed the order on the ground that the prior permis-
  sion of the Government was not obtained for making the award. Thus these
G appeals by special leave.
          Shri G. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
    the notification validly issued by the Collector who is the competent
    authority to issue notification under s.4(1) of the Act, cannot be whittled
    down by the non-consideration of the administrative instructions issued by
H   the Government nor absence of prior approval is a ground to declare the
        COLLECTOR, ONGOLE v. NARRA VENKATESWARLU                      767

valid notification as invalid one. Shri R.N. Keshwani, learned counsel for A
the respondents strenuously contended that attempts were made by the
Sarpanch to get the property in Survey No. 25/10 b;: successive litigations.
There was no proposal for acquiring the land for the weaker sections. The
Collector in a cryptic order has mentioned that the land could be acquired
for weaker sections without any proposal for acquiring the land for weaker
sections. Exercise of the power under s.4 (1) is a colourable exercise of B
power vested in the Collector. The learned single Judge, therefore, rightly
has gone into that question. Accordingly, he made his valient efforts to
convince us to agree with the learned single Judge on the colourable
exercise of the power and to ·uphold the order quashing the notification
under s.4(1) of the Act.                                                     C

       Having given careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the
argument of Shri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant is accept-
able. It is seen that admittedly the notification under s.4(1) was published
by the Collector for acquiring the land for the weaker sections. The
Collector had been empowered to acquire the land for the weaker sections, D
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is true that initially there was
an attempt by the Sarpanch to have the land acquired for Housing
Cooperative Society. Since the members of the Cooperative Society
belor.ged to the forward sections of the societ)r, the land could not be
acquired. The Collector also did not accede to that request. The Tahsildar E
suggested to acquire some another land but that was not accepted by the
Joint Collector. The file had gone to the Collector and ultimately the
Government had accepted the proposal to acquire the land in question for
the weaker sections. It may be true that some of the persons to whom that
allotment was to be made belonged to the forward sections of the society
but that does not take away the initial exercise of the power by the F
Collector. As stated earlier, the Collector is the competent authority to
exercise the power under s.4(1) of the Act. The notification does indicate
that the land was acquired for public purpose, namely, providing houses to
the weaker sections of the society. Even the recommendations made by the
Government after the protracted litigation were for acquiring the land for
weaker sections. Thus the acquisition being only for the weaker sections of G
the society, it constitutes a "public purpose" as defined under the Act by
virtue of the local amendment made to s.17(1) of the Act.


     The next question is whether the learned Judges of the Division
Bench were justified in upholding the quashing of the notification on H
    768                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A different grounds. It is seen that the Collector had formed the opinion that
  the land was required for public purpose, namely, providing houses to the
  weaker sections of the society. The question of non-application of mind
  does not arise. It is obvious that after consideration of the material before
  the Collector, the Collector formed the opinion that the land was required
  for public purpose. The direction of the Government was after protracted
B litigation and to avoid further litigation, Government had directed to
  acquire the land. It would not mean that the Collector had abdicated his
  power under s.4(1). Jt. is true that the Government had issued instructions
  for obtaining prior permission of the Government, if the value of the land
  was more than Rs. 20,000 per acre, the prior permission of the Govern-
C ment in that behalf is necessary. The administrative instructions, no doubt,
  bind the subordinates but the violation thereof does not constitute an
  infirmity in the acquisition of the land itself. It is true that the Government
  could take appropriate disciplinary action against the officials but it does
  not constitute infirmity in the valid exercise of the power under s.4(1) and
  declaration under s.6 of the Act.
D
          It is not disputed that one of the learned Judges has recorded the
    findings that no colourable exercise of the power by the Collector was
    established from record. Though the learned single Judge has held that the
  . acquisition amounts to colourable exercise of the power since one of the
    learned Judges has held that there was no colourable exercise of power
E and there is no disagreement by the another Judge, it must be inferred that
    the Division bench has not accepted the finding of the learned single
    Judge that the acquisition was vitiated by a colourable exercise of power.
    Even otherwise when we have seen that the Government had directed the
    Collector to consider the acquisition for weaker sections and the Collector
    had validly exercised the power under s.4(1) of the Act by no stretch of
F imagination, it could be said that it is a colourable exercise of the power.
    The appeals are allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside and
    the writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

           It is made clear that if any allotment is made to any person other
G than those belonging to the weaker sections, the Collector should take
    immediate action against these persons and cancel the allotments. In other
    words, allotments should be made only to the persons belonging to the
    weaker sections in terms of the notification and Government instructions
    in that behalf.

    R.A.                                                       Appeal's allowed.