STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIAL SINGH & ORS (2)

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1071

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. PATHAK

Case summary

This ~kes me to ~- ---a-proj~tion, in detail, on the screen of time, of the alleged politicking ' behind ~he taking of property challenged in this case. Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894), Ss 4, SA, 6 and 17-Land ac~uisi ~iOn-lligh Court held state action malafide-same land...

Judgment text

10 71 STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. j · October 25, 1979 ~,,,! [V. R. KRISHNA ! YER & R. S. PATHAK, . TJ. ] . Land . Acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894), Ss 4, SA, 6 and 17-Land ac~uisi ~iOn-lligh Court held state action malafide-same land acquired later u11d~r emergency po'wer dispensing with statutory enquiry-Acquisition-Validity of. Land llcqufai:ion proceedings-Allegation by land owner that statutory power rnisused to satisfy personal ends of an individual with political influence -N9 al1£1nzpt to contradict allegation despite opportunity being afiordedma/afides-If p1aved. In 1962, a site was chosen for a grain market and the foundation stone foe it was laid. This spot belonged to a cousin of Respond'ent No. 22, an ex. - Minister and an influential politician. This spot was eventually abandoned in favour of the lands of Respo. ndents Nos.

1 to 21, which were notified l'n 197L The landowners resisted and successfully impeached the acquisition on the ground ,of n1ala [ides before the High Court. After a. Jong interval, the State initiated acquisition proceedings ln respect of the sam'e land a second time, invoking the emergency powers under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 21 a95ailed the acquisition before the High Court on the ground that the statutory power to acquire land had been misused to satisfy the personal ends of Respondent No. 22 and that the acquisition was not for a legitima. te statutory purpose. The High Court stiuck down the 'declaration', and invalidated the acquisition. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition of the State, HELD: " Krishna Iyer, 1. ) · It is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious r and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him e deprivjng him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, an..

1 denial of tJ1is administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except fnr gnod reasons.. Save in rea1 urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to give a he&ring, land acquisition authorities ~hould not, having regard to Articles 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under S. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. [1078H-1079B] In the instant case a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power. [l079B] , ' 2. The power to select land for acquisition proceedings is left to the responsible discretion of Government under the Act, subject to Articfes 14, 19 ood 31 (then). The Court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand again. st what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the property of the Executive and judicial circumspection keeps 'ilie court lock-jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique ends!

'• otherwise void on well-established grounds. [1075 F-G] \ '" 3. Legal n1alice is gibberish unless juristic clarity keeps it separate . t . the popular concept of personal vice. Bad faith which invalidates the ex. er . t. Se of po\ver--son1etimes, called ~olourable exercise or fraud on power and of~ tim'es overlaps n1otives, passions, and satisfoctions-is the attainment of ends beyond the 5anctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the use of the powef is for the fulfilment of a legal . object the actuation or catalysation by mc:. lice is- not l'egicidal. Tue action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, goaded by 'extraneous considerations, good or bad, bul irrelevant to the entrustment.

\Vhen the cus~odian of po\ver is inftuenceJ in its exercise by considerations outsid'e those for promotion of which the power is vested, the court ca11s it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. [1075H-1076C] , 4. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised bona fide tor the end designed. Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude and embraces all cases in which the action impugned is to effect some obfect which is beyond the purpose and intent of the power, whether this be matll:e-laden or even benign. If the purpose i11 corrupt the resultant act is bad. If considerations, foreign to the scope of the power or extraneous to the statute, enter the verdict or impel the action, mala fides or fraud on power vit. iafes the acquisition or other~oflicial act. [1076 D-E] In the. instant case the moving consideration was not that this !

and was needed for the mandi, in the judgment of Government, but that th'e mandi need / \Vas hijacked t r1od of seven years, held so, althoup h th ,,.. t quite see ow e se1 e acfinding of ma/a fides was made. I don° quisition can fail and infer, not re. • /udicata nor cont~ptb ~f dco~~ but repetition of ma/a fide acqui•aon as the real grou-~ e n . . J High Court's holding. This court does not upset a factual finding unless it is upset by perverse assessment, absence of evidence and the like. None such exists and I concur. But what have respondents 1 to 21 made out ? When power runs haywire under statutory cover, ' I)lore needs to be said to make good the exposure. This ~kes me to ~- ---a-proj~tion, in detail, on the screen of time, of the alleged politicking ' behind ~he taking of property challenged in this case.

We assume the facts, stated in the counter-affidavits, to the extent not expressly denied, especially because the 22nd respondent, Shri Bajwa, has not cared to contradict the turpitude imputed to him, which is unfortunatt. We draw tentative conclusions based' on the averu1ents without the advantage of the affected party's response. Long ago in 1962, a -site was chosen for a new grain market and the then Chief Minister, Shri Kil. iron, laid the foundation stone, and s9I)le surviving poles bear testimony to this ancient ritual. This spot q~lpilged to a cousin of Shri Bajwa and was eventually abandoned i! l faVOur of the lands qf respondents 1 to 21. This ven! _ure of 1971 w,as. shot d ground to grant leave has been _made out. The fourth point about the use of emergency power is well taken.. Without referring to supportive case-law it is fundamental that cbm"' PUNJAB V. GURDIAL SINGH (Pathak, !.

) 1079 pulsory talcing of a man's property is aserious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is oonstitutional anathema except for good reasons. Save in real urgency where public interest does not brook even the minimum time needed to givi; a hearing land ac- • quisition authorities should not, having regard to Arts. 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry under Sec. 17 of the Act. Here a slumbering process, pending for years and suddenly exciting itself into immediate forcible taking, makes a travesty of emergency power. I No. constituency in our poor country can afford Kilkenny cat politics and personality cnlt. I dismiss the State's petition. PATHAK, J. I agree that the petition shonki be dismissed. The original acquisition proceeding in respect of the land belonging to Respondents Nos.

1 to 21 was quashed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on the finding that the action was vitiated by mala (ides. A fresh attempt at acquiring the tand· was . assailed by the said respondents and has been struck down by the High Conrt. The petitioners now pray for special leave to appeal. On a conspectus of the material on the record it does seem that the impugned acquisition proceeding cannot be sustained. There is I reason to believe that the statutory power tO acquire land has been J misused to satisfy the personal ends of the respondent No. 22, an individual who appears to be not without considerable political influence. Despite an opportunity afforded to controvert the allegations made by the respondents Nos. 1 to 21, no attempt has been made by him to contradict the allegations.

A counter affidavit has been filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioners, the State of Punjab and the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, but the material portion of the counter affidavit has been verified by its deponent "to the best of my knowledge and belief as derived from official record". The land belonging_ to the respondents Nos. 1 to 21 was selected by a body described as the Site Selection Board. There was also a New Mandi Control Board. The deponent of the counter affidavit was not a member of either Board. He was not a participant in the deliberations ! Which are said lo have led to the selection of the land belonging to the said respondents. Whether or not the deliberations were effected by the influence or pressure -of the respondent No. 22 is a matter to which the officials or members selecting the land could alone be ' A privy. In the absence of any denial of the allegations made by the respondents Nos.

1 to 21 in the writ petitfon by a person having personal and direct knowledge in the matter, and having regard to the entire history of the case, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the· averments in the writ petition alleging ma/a {ides must be accepted. - --~ The petition is. dismissed. 8 N. V. K. Petition dismissed.