Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SUBHASHGIR KHUSHALGIR GOSAVI& ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER& ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 154 1996 SCALE (3)339
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. Heard both the parties.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order made
on November 7, 1994 in W.P. No. 4190 of 1994 by the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition
in limine. It related to the challenge to the notification
issued under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
[for short, the ’Act’] acquiring the land in question for
extension of S.T. Bus stand and depot in Pandharpur in
Maharashtra State. It is no doubt true that Pandharpur is
one of the ancient and renowned temple town of Lord Vithoba
to which all the devotees from several parts of the States,
in particular of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
congregate particularly in Ashadhamas. It is the case of the
appellant that due to traffic congestion it would not be
feasible to extend the existing S.T. Bus stand and the depot
in the congested area which gets reflected from the orders
passed by the Municipality, the recommendation made by the
District Collector and also the resolutions passed by the
Municipality in that behalf. It is also the case of the
appellant that under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional
Town Planning Acts 1966 unless the user is changed by proper
notification, the land which is reserved for residential
purpose cannot be used for commercial purpose. Therefore,
the acquisition in question is bad in law.
The only question is: whether the impugned notification
is bad in law? Extension of the bus stand obviously is a
public purpose and, therefore, it per se cannot be said to
be bad in law. It is true as pointed out by the Collector
and the representation dated August 8, 1986 made in that
behalf by some people that there is congestion and
acquisition is not in public interest. But it is for the
Government to take a decision and it is not for the Court to
decide as to which place is more convenient. Since the
Government have taken a decision that acquiring the land for
extension of the bus stand and bus depot is in the public
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
interest, it cannot be said that the exercise of the power
is arbitrary.
It is contended by Shri U.R. Lalit, learned senior
counsel that when large congregation of lakhs of people come
thronging the temple town of Lord Vithoba, instead of
relieving the congestion by shifting the existing bus stand
and bus depot to some place in the out-skirts of city,
extension itself will add to the congregation. Though the
argument may be plausible and attractive, we cannot go into
that question. It is for the Government to take a decision
and it is not for this Court to give any finding in that
behalf. The Government did take contra decision. It is
equally true that the area was reserved for residential
purpose. It is not the case that they are establishing the
bus stand in the residential area for the first time. In
fact bus stand is already existing and acquisition was only
for extension of the existing bus stand. Under these
circumstances, we do not find that there is any
justification warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.