R. Rani alias Balaguruvaji vs The Union of India, The Union Territory of Pondicherry and The Sub Collector (Revenue), Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Pondicherry

Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.—This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 12590 of 1985 decided on 13-1-1986. Notification under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, vide G.O.Ms.No. 100, Revenue Department, Government of Pondicherry, on 16-11-1982 for acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely "for widening and improvements to Mahatma Gandhi Road from Ajanta Theatre to Kottakuppam including construction of side drainage in Pondicherry region". The details of the land were mentioned and the land of the appellant was included in the land sought to be acquired. An enquiry under S.5A of the Act followed. The appellant also filed objections. The objections were conveyed to the acquiring authority and on their suggestion, the same were overruled. Consequent thereupon, a declaration under S.6 of the Act came to be issued�vide G.O.Ms. No. 53, Revenue Department, Government of Pondicherry, on 16-9-1985. The appellant being aggrieved by the acquisition of her land, filed Writ Petition No. 12590/85 and sought the quashing of the notification under S.4(1) as well as the declaration under S.6 of the Act in so far as it related to the land belonging to the appellant. In the writ petition, the challenge to the acquisition was made on two grounds. Firstly, it was alleged that the land of the appellant was going to be used for erection of a transformer and that was not the public purpose declared either in the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, or in the declaration under S.6 of the Act. Secondly, it was urged that by reason of the acquisition, the right of the appellant to worship the Pillayar deity, the temple of which is situate near the property, would be denied. The learned Single Judge considered the objections and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that there was no merit in either of the contentions. The petition was consequently dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has only reiterated the first ground which was raised before the learned Single Judge and has gone on to urge that the acquisition of the appellant''s land was a colourable exercise of the power by the authorities. In so far as the grievance with regard to the denial to the appellant to worship, which was raised before the learned Single Judge, it was not raised before us in the appeal, and rightly so, in view of the finding recorded on the basis of the fact by the learned Single Judge.

It is not disputed that the public purpose for which the notification had been issued is for widening and improvement of Mahatma Gandhi Road from Ajanta Theatre to Kottakuppam, including the construction of side drainage in Pondicherry region. There is also no dispute that on Mahatma Gandhi Road which was sought to be widened by acquisition of the land including the land belonging to the appellant, there exists a transformer which, on account of the widening of the road, required to be shifted. The short question which arises for consideration is, whether it was incumbent on the authorities to disclose the purpose of shifting of the transformer also in the notification under S.4(1) or in the declaration under S.6 of the Act? Neither the notification under S.4(1) of the Act, nor the declaration under S.6 of the Act is meant to be an encyclopaedia of all incidental things required to be done for carrying out the public purpose which is mentioned in the notification under S.4(1) or under S.6 of the Act. Since the shifting of the transformer from Mahatma Gandhi Road was necessitated because of widening of the road, its re-erection was also a necessity which would fall within the consequential things to be done for achieving the public purpose declared in the notification under S.4(1) of the Act or in the declaration under S.6 of the Act. The site owned by the appellant was selected for re-erection of the transformer on techno-economic grounds and it is not possible for this Court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the experts. Since the public purpose for which acquisitions have been made was intended to include all consequential things necessary to be done for the purpose of implementing the public purpose and the shifting and re-erection of the transformer being one of them, we fail to see how any grievance can be made by the appellant of the non-mention of the precise purpose of shifting of the transformer or its re-erection in the notification under S.4(1) of the Act or in the declaration under S.6 of the Act. Learned Counsel has been unable to persuade us to agree that there has been any colourable exercise of power or any mala fide on the part of the authorities for acquiring the land belonging to the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to The Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Salem Steel Plant, Salem and another v. Kuppu Gownder 98 L.W. 864= 1985 T.N.L.J. 284 in support of his submission. We, however, find that the said judgment has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case and is clearly distinguishable. In the case referred supra, the notification issued under S.4(1) of the Act was on behalf of the Government of India, with reference to a project started by it. The continuance of the acquisition, however, was sought to be done by the State Government, for a public work not connected with the original purpose for which the land was notified for acquisition on behalf of the Central Government. It was under those circumstances that Their Lordships found the acquisition proceedings to be bad. In the instant case, the public purpose undoubtedly continues to be the same which was mentioned in the notification under S.4(1) as also in the declaration under S.6 of the Act, and the acquisition of the land for re-erecting a transformer to be shifted from the Mahathma Gandhi Road as a result of the widening of the road is a part of the same public purpose. Thus for what we have stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.