Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3177-3178 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.26770-26771 OF 2011)
MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3179-3180 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS.26779-26780 OF 2011)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3181 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.13124 OF 2012)
A N D
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3182 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.17407 OF 2012)
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
Leave granted.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 1 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 1
2) These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated April 29,
2011 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
whereby number of writ petitions which were filed challenging the
acquisition of land measuring 192.75 acres vide two notifications,
both dated 10.08.2009, issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were
dismissed. As a consequence, validity of the notifications has
been upheld, holding that acquisition for public purpose for
development of Missing Link-II from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan
Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana as well as for development
of residential urban estate along proposed road from Dhandra
Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, is just
and proper.
JUDGMENT
3) It is clear from the above that two notifications were issued on the
same day i.e. on 10.08.2009. Vide first notification, land was
acquired for development of Missing Link-II on the route
mentioned above. By the second notification, land was sought to
be acquired for the development of residential urban estate along
with the proposed road, mainly to adjust oustees of the above
said road. Land acquired by the first notification was 192.75
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 2 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 2
acres whereas by the second notification, land measuring 59
acres 1 kanal 12 marlas was acquired. After the aforesaid
notifications under Section 4 of the Act, two notifications both
dated 10.08.2009 under Section 6 of the Act were issued and
consequent thereupon, Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010 pertaining
to the first notification and Award No.3 dated 07.08.2010
pertaining to the second notification were passed. Validity of all
these notifications was the subject matter of the writ petitions.
4) In order to appreciate the present dispute in its correct
perspective, it is necessary to consider some important
background facts pertaining to construction of what has been
termed as 'Missing Link-I' – which is inextricably linked to the
present acquisition. It is a matter of record that a bypass is being
JUDGMENT
constructed to connect Ferozepur Road to Sidhwan Canal aiming
at decongesting Ludhiana City of the traffic problems. Major
portion of the road had already been constructed, which were
shown in the site plan filed in the High Court as Annexure R/1/7.
From point A to point D and again from point E to point F, these
portions had already been constructed. However, there were two
Missing Links namely between point D to point E and point F to
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 3 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 3
point G. Missing Link from point D to E has been shown as
'Missing Link-I'. The respondent-State had issued the notification
dated 12.05.2003 under Section 4 read with Section 17(4),
followed by the notification dated 13.05.2003 under Section 6, to
acquire land measuring 11 acres 3 kanal 9 marlas for construction
of Missing Link-I. Pursuant thereto, the land was acquired vide
Award No.1 dated 24.08.2005. This acquisition was challenged
but the said challenge failed as writ petitions were dismissed and
decision of the High Court was upheld by this Court as well.
5) It is in this scenario, for providing road from point F to point G
(Missing Link-II), the impugned notification dated 10.08.2009 was
issued for the aforesaid public purpose. As per the Government,
the bypass had been planned and realignment done keeping in
JUDGMENT
view the availability of the land so that it may not affect the
existing buildings and in order to solve the increasing traffic
problems in future so as to ensure free and smooth flow of the
traffic. The realignment was approved by the Punjab Regional
and Town Planning and Development Board (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Board') in its meeting dated 06.08.2009. That led to the
passing of Award No.4 dated 07.08.2010.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 4 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 4
6) Simultaneously, second set of notifications were issued for
acquisition of land for development of residential urban estate to
adjust oustees of the above said road. According to the
Government, with the acquisition of the land to complete Missing
Link-II, the residents of the said land had to be ousted. In order to
adjust those oustees, it became necessary to acquire the land for
development of residential urban estate to rehabilitate such
oustees.
7) Insofar as first notification is concerned, it was challenged on
various grounds including the plea that the said acquisition for
proposed road i.e. Missing Link-II, is an inviable option and there
is total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondent-
JUDGMENT
Government in acquiring the land in question. It was also argued
that land was not utilised entirely for the construction of the
aforesaid proposed road i.e. Missing Link-II but a large portion of
the acquired land was used for other purpose viz. commercial
purpose which is not the purpose stated in the notifications.
Number of other technical and legal objections were taken
including the objection that the proposed bypass road has not
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 5 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 5
been shown in the master plan and, therefore, the same could not
be developed by acquiring the land without first making
amendments in the master plan. However, none of these
arguments have found favour with the High Court. Insofar as
second notification is concerned, there is not much discussion in
the impugned judgment and the counsel for all the parties agreed
that this Court itself should decide the issue on merits.
8) Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel who appeared in three
appeals out of four, targeted the judgment of the High Court,
insofar as it relates to the first acquisition namely acquisition of
land for Missing Link-II is concerned, by raising following
arguments:
In the first place, he pleaded that the land in question was
JUDGMENT
utilised for the purposes different from what is stated in the
notification. It was the submission that though the purpose was
Missing Link-II for development (Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal
via Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana), as a matter of record, a large
part of the acquired land was used for a totally different purpose
viz. commercial purpose, which according to him is impermissible
in law. He referred to the replies filed by the official respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 6 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 6
wherein the factum of land being used for commercial purpose
had been admitted. He pointed out that the width of Missing Link-
II had been kept at 450 feet whereas the proposed road is only
200 feet and on both the sides two commercial pockets of 100
feet and 150 feet respectively are going to be developed. He also
pointed out that objections were submitted under Section 5-A of
the Act which related to the stated public purpose only. As the
use of part of the land for the commercial purpose was not stated
in the notification and the appellants were kept in dark, they could
not file objections to the same and were thereby deprived of their
legitimate right to file effective objections. He pleaded that it
amounted to violation of the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act
by depriving the appellants from giving opportunity to submit their
objections to the aforesaid use of land which was not stated in the
JUDGMENT
impugned notifications. He further argued in this behalf that the
utilisation of land for purpose other than the purpose stated not
only defeats the right available under Section 5A of the Act but
the consequence thereof would be to acquire the land under
Section 17 of the Act viz. in exercise of emergent powers and that
could not be done without following the procedure contained in
that section. Related submission of Mr. Nidhesh Gupta was that
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 7 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 7
utilising the major chunk of land for developing commercial area
clearly showed that the land of the appellants was acquired to
finance the project of constructing the road. According to him,
such an action is per se arbitrary as land of the appellants could
not be acquired for such a purpose thereby depriving them of
their right to livelihood. He took this argument on a higher
pedestal by submitting that such an act amounted to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
9) Another submission of Mr. Nidesh Gupta was that the proposed
road (Missing Link-II) and the changes made therein are contrary
to the master plan inasmuch as master plan does not show such
a road and, therefore, there could not be any construction of any
road without there being a provision made in the master plan. He
JUDGMENT
referred to Section 77 of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995 which prescribes the mandatory
procedure that has to be followed without making the changes in
the master plan and submitted that the construction of the road
amounted to violation of this provision as well.
10) Ms. S. Janani, who appeared for the other appellant led by Mr.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 8 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 8
M.L. Saggar, senior advocate, also highlighted the aforesaid
contentions argued by Mr. Nidhesh Gupta and elaborated the
same with facts and figures from the record. In addition, another
thrust of their submission was that alignment of the road was
changed thereby creating Missing Link-II and this was not only
arbitrary but without application of mind as well.
11) Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Additional Solictor General, argued
the matter on behalf of respondent No.3, namely Greater
Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GDADA), strongly refuting
the aforesaid submissions of the appellants. He referred to the
various meetings that had taken place before the final decision
was taken in respect of the realignment of the road. He was at
pains to submit that it was a bona fide policy decision taken to
JUDGMENT
complete the Missing Link-II inasmuch as other route for
completing this road would have resulted in uprooting the settled
habitation in much more substantial measure. In order to
demonstrate it, learned senior counsel had drawn our attention to
various maps as well. He also referred to the judgment of the
High Court where this material has been noted and discussed
elaborately, while upholding the acquisition.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 9 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 9
12) It is clear from the aforesaid that in so far as the first notification is
concerned, where the land is acquired for the purpose of
constructing Missing Link-II, it has two facets. First relates to the
construction of the road itself, popularly known as Missing Link-II.
Second facet thereof is the permissibility of the utilisation of the
part of the land for commercial purpose which was not so stated
in the impugned notifications.
13) Insofar as first aspect is concerned, we find from the impugned
judgment that the High Court has dealt with this aspect very
lucidly with precision. As pointed out above, attempt of the
counsel was to demonstrate that there already exist enough links
and it was not necessary to propose the road. It was also argued
JUDGMENT
that the realignment was not a wise decision.
14) Attempt was also made to point out that this purpose for which
land was acquired had become redundant in the changed
circumstances. However, after going into the matter in depth and
examining the records, we are satisfied that the High Court has
correctly concluded that it is for the authorities, who are engaged
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 10 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 10
in the development and planning of a city, to ascertain the need to
acquire the land for creating infrastructure, such as roads etc. It
is a matter of record that their exists a road from point A to point D
and again from point E to point F. There are two Missing Links
namely Missing Link-I from point D to point E and Missing Link-II
from point F to point G. The land which was acquired for Missing
Link-I, almost in similar circumstances, was subject matter of
litigation but the attempts of the landholders failed right upto this
Court as the challenge to the said notification was thwarted.
15) We also find that there have been due deliberations by the
competent authorities deciding upon the realignment of the road
leading to proposed Missing Link-II. We do not find any
arbitrariness in the exercise done at the highest level inasmuch
JUDGMENT
as the Chief Minister himself approved the revised plans. It is not
the function of this Court to compare the Missing Link-II with
alternate route suggested by the appellants and to come to the
conclusion which out of the two would be more appropriate.
16) Insofar as argument predicated on the master plan is concerned,
the High Court has brushed aside this very argument with the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 11 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 11
following discussion:
“Further the argument of the learned counsel
for the appellants that the proposed Bye
Pass road has not been shown in the Master
Plan and therefore, the same cannot be
developed by acquiring the land is without
any force. As shown by the learned counsel
for the respondents the realignment of the
Missing Link-II which falls in Zonal Plan-I has
been notified as per the provisions of the
Punjab Act vide notification No.1379 dated
24.02.2011 Annexure R-1/8 and the same
has been shown in the Zonal Plan of zone
No.1 Annexure R-1/9. The argument of the
learned counsel for the appellants that the
alleged realignment of the road has not been
done in accordance with the provisions of
Section 76/77 of the Punjab Act, is also
without any merit. From the facts established
on record, it is clear that the changes have
been necessitated which have arisen out of
implementation of the proposals as made in
the master plan and such realignment has
been made in public interest and after
notification of the same which is clear from
Annexure R-1/8. Interpretation as given by
learned counsel for the appellants of Section
76 of Punjab Act cannot be accepted.
Section 76 of Punjab Act reads as follows:
JUDGMENT
“Amendment of Master Plan- (1) At any time
after the date on which the Master Plan for
an area comes into operation, and at least
once after every ten years, after that date,
the Designated Planning Agency shall after
carrying out such fresh surveys as may be
considered necessary or as directed by the
[State Government] prepare and submit to
the [State Government], a Master Plan after
making alterations or additions as it
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 12 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 12
considers necessary.
(2) The provisions of [sections 70 and 75]
shall mutatis mutandis as far as may be
possible, apply to the Master Plan submitted
under sub-section (1).”
A perusal of Section 76(1) of Punjab Act clearly indicates
that the Master Plan can be amended at any time after the date
on which the Master Plan for an area comes into operation and
not after 10 years from such date as argued by the learned
counsel for the appellants. Even otherwise, the High Court is of
the view that, in the present case, Section 76 of Punjab Act has
no applicability and in fact the realignment has been done under
Section 77 of the Punjab Act and, thus, there is no violation of the
provisions of the Punjab Act.
JUDGMENT
17) We are in agreement with the aforesaid findings arrived at by the
High Court. We would like to record here that in the affidavit
dated May 06, 2014 filed by the respondent-authorities, it is
specifically averred that the alignment of the Missing Link-II
between the Railway line and Sidhwan Canal/crossing Malerkotla
Road has never been changed. Just below the point where the
Missing Link-II crosses the Malerkotla Road is an angular curve
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 13 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 13
near village Gil (in Hadbast 263). This is explained by pointing
out that in the map filed the 10 km long road is divided into 6
segments: A-B already constructed, B-C already constructed, C-D
already constructed. D-E is Missing Link-I which has since been
constructed in the year 2012-13. E-F already constructed and F-
G is the Missing Link-II. Missing Link-II is further divided into
points F and F1 i.e. the road between Dhandra Road to Railway
Crossing, F-1 to F-2 the Missing Link-II road between existing
Railway Crossing and Malerkotla Road and F2 to G i.e. between
Malerkotla Road and Sidhwan Canal. Point G is just near Lohara
village. It is also pointed out that in the blown-up portion of the
Traffic & Transportation plan (which is not revenue based) of the
Master Plan again this road from Firozepur Road till Sidhwan
Canal is marked as Points A, B, C, D, E, F, F1, F2 and G. The
JUDGMENT
road crosses the Railway Line at point F1, the existing railway
crossing. The Missing Link-II road crosses Malerkotla Road at
point F2 just above point H, the curved road of Gill Village at point
H and ends at Point G, just near Village Lohara. The deponent
has also filed Aks Shajra map, zonal plan of the area, and plan
showing alignment of Missing Link-II. From these plans, an
attempt is made to demonstrate that at no point of time there is
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 14 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 14
any variation in the alignment of Missing Link-II between the
portions F1 to G, be it Master Plan, Revenue Plans or Zonal
Development Plan. The only change in alignment has been
made between the portion F and F1 which was necessitated
during the implementation of the Master Plan to avoid the area in
which there was heavy construction existing. The realigned road
between Point F and F1 is passing through open areas avoiding
the constructed areas.
18) We are, thus, satisfied on the basis of the records that the plea of
the appellants that the alignment of the road between Points F
and G from Traffic & Transportation Plan of the Master Plan has
been shifted by about 3 – 4.5 kms on the Northern side is not
correct.
JUDGMENT
19) As a consequence, insofar as need of land for the construction of
Missing Link-II is concerned, the same stands duly established
and for acquisition of this chunk of land, there cannot be any
exception.
20) This leads us to the second facet of this notification. As noted
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 15 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 15
above, the width of road for Missing Link-II is 200 feet. However,
the land acquired is 450 feet. Land beyond 200 feet on either
side is sought to be utilised by constructing shops on both sides
of the road. We have already recorded the submissions of the
appellants on the basis of which this part of acquisition is
questioned. To recapitulate the same briefly, it was argued :
(a) such a purpose is not stated in the notification which
mentions the acquisition only for the purpose of
construction of Missing Link-II. Under the garb of this
notification, the respondents cannot utilise the part of the
land for commercial purpose.
(b) In the absence of any such purpose mentioned in the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the appellants
were deprived of purposeful and effective opportunity to file
JUDGMENT
objections under Section 5-A of the Act.
(c) The hidden purpose of utilising the major chunk of land for
developing commercial area shows that the land of the
appellants was acquired to finance the project of
constructing the road. According to the appellants, it is
clearly impermissible.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 16 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 16
21) Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the judgment
of this Court in Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society,
1
Hyderabad etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. ,
wherein this Court while upholding the acquisition, had directed
that lands had to be utilised for the purposes for which they were
acquired. For the same proposition, judgment in Narpat Singh
2
etc. v. Jaipur Development Authority and Another was relied
upon.
22) The respondents have attempted to meet this challenge by
explaining that in the notifications it was categorically stated that
plans of the land may be inspected in the office of the Land
Acquisition Collector (LAC). The plans which were displayed in
the office of the LAC and filed on record, show that this part of the
JUDGMENT
land to be utilised for the commercial purpose. The land owners
were, therefore, fully made aware of the use of the land. They
were given an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5-
A of the Act. However, no objection was submitted by the
1
(2000) 1 SCC 533
2 (2002) 4 SCC 666
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 17 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 17
affected persons alleging that development of commercial area
along side of Missing Link-II was improper or should not be done.
On that basis, it is argued, relying on the decision of this Court in
the case of Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and
3
Others , that those claimants who had not filed objections to the
Section 4 notification cannot now be permitted to contend before
Court that the Section 5-A inquiry is vitiated.
23) We have pondered over this issue in depth with reference to the
record and find force in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellants. It is clear from the facts noted above that in
the notification dated 10.08.2009 issued under Section 4 of the
Act, public purpose which is stated is “Missing Link-II for
development (from Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via
JUDGMENT
Malerkotla Road), Ludhiana....”. Thus, the land owners were
informed that the land is sought to be acquired for the
construction of Missing Link-II. From the reading of this
notification, it is difficult to visualize by a common person with
reasonable prudence that the part of land is sought to be
exploited for commercial development as well. Obviously, when
the purpose stated is construction of Missing Link-II, the
3 (2000) 7 SCC 296
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 18 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 18
objections would be filed by land owners having focus on the said
stated purpose in mind. Had the land owners been told that
major part of the land is going to be utilised for commercial
purpose as well, they would have filed their objections to the
proposed move. With no specific stipulation in this behalf in the
notification under Section 4 of the Act, the persons whose land
was sought to be acquired were deprived of an effective
opportunity to file the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It
hardly needs to be mentioned that filing of objections under
Section 5-A of the Act is, in substance, the only procedural
safeguard/right given to the land owners. It is for this reason that
violation of Section 5-A of the Act has been treated as fatal by this
Court in number of cases as it becomes violative of principles of
natural justice. The importance of objections under Section 5-A
JUDGMENT
of the Act has been highlighted in Usha Stud and Agricultural
4
Farms Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Haryana and others as
under:
“23. Section 5-A, which embodies the most
important dimension of the rules of natural
justice, lays down that any person interested in
any land notified under Section 4(1) may, within
30 days of publication of the notification, submit
objection in writing against the proposed
acquisition of land or of any land in the locality to
4 (2013) 4 SCC 210
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 19 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 19
the Collector. The Collector is required to give the
objector an opportunity of being heard either in
person or by any person authorised by him or by
pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making
such further inquiry, as he may think necessary,
the Collector has to make a report in respect of
land notified under Section 4(1) with his
recommendations on the objections and forward
the same to the Government along with the
record of the proceedings held by him. The
Collector can make different reports in respect of
different parcels of land proposed to be acquired.
24. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the
appropriate Government is required to take
action under Section 6(1) which lays down that if
after considering the report, if any, made under
Section 5-A(2), the appropriate Government is
satisfied that any particular land is needed for a
public purpose, then a declaration to that effect is
required to be made under the signatures of a
Secretary to the Government or of some officer
duly authorised to certify its orders. This section
also envisages making of different declarations
from time to time in respect of different parcels of
land covered by the same notification issued
under Section 4(1). In terms of Clause (ii) of the
proviso to Section 6(1), no declaration in respect
of any particular land covered by a notification
issued under Section 4(1), which is published
after 24.9.1989 can be made after expiry of one
year from the date of publication of the
notification. To put it differently, a declaration is
required to be made under Section 6(1) within
one year from the date of publication of the
notification under Section 4(1).
JUDGMENT
25. In terms of Section 6(2), every declaration
made under Section 6(1) is required to be
published in the Official Gazette and in two daily
newspapers having circulation in the locality in
which the land proposed to be acquired is
situated. of these, at least one must be in the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 20 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 20
regional language. The Collector is also required
to cause public notice of the substance of such
declaration to be given at convenient places in
the locality. The declaration to be published
under Section 6(2) must contain the district or
other territorial division in which the land is
situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate area or a plan is made in respect of
land and the place where such plan can be
inspected.
26. Section 6(3) lays down that the declaration
made under Section 6(1) shall be conclusive
evidence of the fact that land is needed for a
public purpose.
27. After publication of the declaration under
Section 6(1), the Collector is required to take
order from the State Government for the
acquisition of land and cause it to be measured
and planned (Sections 7 and 8). The next stage
is the issue of public notice and individual notice
to the persons interested in the land to file their
claim for compensation. Section 11 envisages
holding of an enquiry into the claim and passing
of an award by the Collector who is required to
take into consideration the provisions contained
in Section 23.
JUDGMENT
28. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India, (1973) 2
SCC 337, this Court emphasised the importance
of Section 5-A in the following words:
“7. ...Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A
makes it obligatory on the Collector to
give an objector an opportunity of being
heard. After hearing all objections and
making further inquiry he is to make a
report to the appropriate Government
containing his recommendation on the
objections. The decision of the
appropriate Government on the objections
is then final. The declaration under
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 21 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 21
Section 6 has to be made after the
appropriate Government is satisfied, on a
consideration of the report, if any, made
by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The
legislature has, therefore, made complete
provisions for the persons interested to
file objections against the proposed
acquisition and for the disposal of their
objections. It is only in cases of urgency
that special powers have been conferred
on the appropriate Government to
dispense with the provisions of Section 5-
A.”
29. In State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2
SCC 471, the Court observed as under:
“16. ...it is fundamental that compulsory
taking of a man's property is a serious
matter and the smaller the man the more
serious the matter. Hearing him before
depriving him is both reasonable and pre-
emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this
administrative fairness is constitutional
anathema except for good reasons. Save
in real urgency where public interest does
not brook even the minimum time needed
to give a hearing land acquisition
authorities should not, having regard to
Articles 14 (and 19), burke an enquiry
under Section 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.”
JUDGMENT
30. In Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar,
(1993) 4 SCC 255, this Court reiterated that
compliance of Section 5-A is mandatory and
observed:
“10. ...The decision of the Collector is
supposedly final unless the appropriate
Government chooses to interfere therein
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 22 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 22
and cause affectation, suo motu or on the
application of any person interested in
the land. These requirements obviously
lead to the positive conclusion that the
proceeding before the Collector is a
blend of public and individual enquiry.
The person interested, or known to be
interested, in the land is to be served
personally of the notification, giving him
the opportunity of objecting to the
acquisition and awakening him to such
right. That the objection is to be in writing,
is indicative of the fact that the enquiry
into the objection is to focus his individual
cause as well as public cause. That at the
time of the enquiry, for which prior notice
shall be essential, the objector has the
right to appear in person or through
pleader and substantiate his objection by
evidence and argument.”
31. In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat's case, this Court
referred to the judgments in Munshi Singh v.
Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 337, State of
Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471,
Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1993) 4
SCC 255, Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, (2004)
8 SCC 14, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627,
Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P., (2011) 5 SCC 553
and observed:
JUDGMENT
“39. In this context, it is necessary to
remember that the rules of natural justice
have been ingrained in the scheme of
Section 5-A with a view to ensure that
before any person is deprived of his land
by way of compulsory acquisition, he
must get an opportunity to oppose the
decision of the State Government and/or
its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire
the particular parcel of land. At the
hearing, the objector can make an effort
to convince the Land Acquisition
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 23 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 23
Collector to make recommendation
against the acquisition of his land. He
can also point out that the land proposed
to be acquired is not suitable for the
purpose specified in the notification
issued under Section 4(1). Not only this,
he can produce evidence to show that
another piece of land is available and the
same can be utilised for execution of the
particular project or scheme.
40. Though it is neither possible nor
desirable to make a list of the grounds
on which the landowner can persuade
the Collector to make recommendations
against the proposed acquisition of land,
but what is important is that the Collector
should give a fair opportunity of hearing
to the objector and objectively consider
his plea against the acquisition of land.
Only thereafter, he should make
recommendations supported by brief
reasons as to why the particular piece of
land should or should not be acquired
and whether or not the plea put forward
by the objector merits acceptance. In
other words, the recommendations made
by the Collector must reflect objective
application of mind to the objections filed
by the landowners and other interested
persons.”
JUDGMENT
32. In Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West
Bengal (supra), this Court again considered the
scope of Section 5-A and observed:
“13. Section 5-A(1) of the LA Act gives a
right to any person interested in any
land which has been notified under
Section 4(1) as being needed or likely to
be needed for a public purpose to raise
objections to the acquisition of the said
land. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A
requires the Collector to give the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 24 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 24
objector an opportunity of being heard in
person or by any person authorised by
him in this behalf. After hearing the
objections, the Collector can, if he thinks
it necessary, make further inquiry.
Thereafter, he has to make a report to
the appropriate Government containing
his recommendations on the objections
together with the record of the
proceedings held by him for the decision
of the appropriate Government and the
decision of the appropriate Government
on the objections shall be final.
14. It must be borne in mind that the
proceedings under the LA Act are based
on the principle of eminent domain and
Section 5-A is the only protection
available to a person whose lands are
sought to be acquired. It is a minimal
safeguard afforded to him by law to
protect himself from arbitrary acquisition
by pointing out to the authority
concerned, inter alia, that the important
ingredient, namely, "public purpose" is
absent in the proposed acquisition or
the acquisition is mala fide. The LA Act
being an expropriatory legislation, its
provisions will have to be strictly
construed.
JUDGMENT
15. Hearing contemplated under Section
5-A(2) is necessary to enable the
Collector to deal effectively with the
objections raised against the proposed
acquisition and make a report. The
report of the Collector referred to in this
provision is not an empty formality
because it is required to be placed
before the appropriate Government
together with the Collector's
recommendations and the record of the
case. It is only upon receipt of the said
report that the Government can take a
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 25 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 25
final decision on the objections. It is
pertinent to note that declaration under
Section 6 has to be made only after the
appropriate Government is satisfied on
the consideration of the report, if any,
made by the Collector under Section 5-
A(2). As said by this Court in Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the
appropriate Government while issuing
declaration under Section 6 of the LA
Act is required to apply its mind not only
to the objections filed by the owner of
the land in question, but also to the
report which is submitted by the
Collector upon making such further
inquiry thereon as he thinks necessary
and also the recommendations made by
him in that behalf.
16. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the
LA Act makes a declaration under
Section 6 conclusive evidence that the
land is needed for a public purpose.
Formation of opinion by the appropriate
Government as regards the public
purpose must be preceded by
application of mind as regards
consideration of relevant factors and
rejection of irrelevant ones. It is,
therefore, that the hearing contemplated
under Section 5-A and the report made
by the Land Acquisition Officer and his
recommendations assume importance.
It is implicit in this provision that before
making declaration under Section 6 of
the LA Act, the State Government must
have the benefit of a report containing
recommendations of the Collector
submitted under Section 5-A (2) of the
LA Act. The recommendations must
indicate objective application of mind.”
JUDGMENT
33. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that
Section 5-A(2), which represents statutory
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 26 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 26
embodiment of the rule of audi alteram partem,
gives an opportunity to the objector to make an
endeavour to convince the Collector that his land
is not required for the public purpose specified in
the notification issued under Section 4(1) or that
there are other valid reasons for not acquiring
the same. That section also makes it obligatory
for the Collector to submit report(s) to the
appropriate Government containing his
recommendations on the objections, together
with the record of the proceedings held by him
so that the Government may take appropriate
decision on the objections. Section 6(1) provides
that if the appropriate Government is satisfied,
after considering the report, if any, made by the
Collector under Section 5-A that particular land is
needed for the specified public purpose then a
declaration should be made. This necessarily
implies that the State Government is required to
apply mind to the report of the Collector and take
final decision on the objections filed by the
landowners and other interested persons. Then
and then only, a declaration can be made under
Section 6(1).
24) The aforesaid dicta was reiterated recently in Women's
JUDGMENT
5
Education Trust and another v. State of Haryana and others
emphasising the importance of Section 5-A in the following words:
“5. The principles which can be culled out from
the above-noted judgments are as under:
5.1. The rule of audi alteram partem
engrained in the scheme of Section 5-A of
the Act ensures that before depriving any
person of his land by compulsory acquisition,
an effective opportunity must be given to him
to contest the decision taken by the State
Government /competent authority to acquire
the particular parcel of land.
5 (2013) 8 SCC 99
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 27 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 27
5.2. Any person interested in the land, which
has been notified under Section 4(1) of the
Act, can file objections under Section 5A(1)
and show that the purpose specified in the
notification is really not a public purpose or
that in the guise of acquiring the land for a
public purpose the appropriate Government
wants to confer benefit upon private persons
or that the decision of the appropriate
Government is arbitrary or is vitiated due to
mala fides.
5.3. In response to the notice issued by the
Land Acquisition Collector under Section
5A(2) of the Act, the objector can make all
possible endeavours to convince the Land
Acquisition Collector that the acquisition is
not for a public purpose specified in the
notification issued under Section 4(1); that
his land is not suitable for the particular
purpose; that other more suitable parcels of
land are available, which can be utilized for
execution of the particular project or scheme.
5.4. The Land Acquisition Collector is duty
bound to objectively consider the arguments
advanced by the objector and make
recommendations, duly supported by brief
reasons, as to why the particular piece of
land should or should not be acquired and
whether the plea put forward by the objector
merits acceptance. In other words, the
recommendations made by the Land
Acquisition Collector should reflect objective
application of mind to the entire record
including the objections filed by the interested
persons.
JUDGMENT
5.5. The Land Acquisition Collector is
required to submit his report and the
recommendations to the State Government
along with the record of proceedings to
enable the latter to take final call on the
desirability, propriety and justification for the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 28 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 28
acquisition of the particular parcel(s) of land.
5.6 The declaration under Section 6(1) of the
Act can be issued only if the appropriate
Government, on an objective application of
mind to the objections filed by the interested
persons including the landowners and the
report of the Land Acquisition Collector, is
satisfied that the land is needed for the
particular purpose specified in the notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Act.
6. It is unfortunate that despite repeated
judicial pronouncements, the executive
authorities entrusted with the task of
acquiring private land for any specified public
purposes have time and again exhibited total
lack of seriousness in the performance of
their duties under the statute. Often they do
not comply with the mandate of Section 5A of
the Act, which is sine qua non for making a
valid declaration under Section 6(1) of the
Act. This batch of appeals is illustrative of
the malady that has afflicted the State
authorities who are keen to acquire private
lands in the name of planned development of
various urban areas, but do not bother to
comply with the relevant statutory provisions
and the rules of natural justice.”
JUDGMENT
[Emphasis Supplied]
25) We, thus, are of the opinion that appellants are deprived of proper
and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities
concerned to spare that part of the land which is not required for
construction of Missing Link-II but is intended to be used for
commercial purpose. We are not influenced by the arguments of
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 29 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 29
the respondents that in the drawings which were kept for
inspection, this part of land is shown for commercial
development. First of all, it is disputed by the appellants and
nothing is produced on record by the respondents to substantiate
this plea. In any case, we are of the view that such a drawing by
itself would not meet the mandatory requirement of the Act in the
absence of specific stipulation in this behalf in the notification
itself.
26) In the aforesaid backdrop, we find strength in the submission of
the appellants that the hidden purpose for acquiring “surplus”
land, i.e. the land apart from what is required for constructing
Missing Link-II, was to develop it as commercial area (which is
not stated in the acquisition notification) so that the finances could
JUDGMENT
be arranged for construction of road or for some other purpose.
This cannot be treated as public purpose. If the land was to be
utilised for commercial purpose, there has to be a proper planning
into it and it needs to be demonstrated that utilisation of the land
serves some public purpose. We do not find it to be so in the
present case.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 30 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 30
27) Mr. Khanna had cited certain judgments in support of his
submission that even if the land is acquired for one particular
purpose, the authorities are empowered to utilise the same for
another public purpose. However, it is permissible in those
circumstances where the original purpose for which the land was
acquired had to be changed for some valid reasons. Even that is
not the case herein. From the very beginning, the authorities had
in mind to use the extra chunk of land for commercial purpose but
the same was not even stated in the notifications issued under
Sections 4 or 6 of the Act. It is stated at the cost of the repetition
that insofar as notifications are concerned, purpose mentioned is
construction of Missing Link-II, and in this scenario, the
authorities cannot acquire more land than what is required for
construction of Missing Link-II. The notifications to the extent
JUDGMENT
they acquire land over and above which is needed for
construction of Missing Link-II are, thus, held to be bad in law and
set aside.
28) This brings us to the validity of second notification. As already
mentioned above, 55.41 acres of land has been acquired vide
notification No.3 dated 07.08.2010 and the public purpose stated
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 31 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 31
is “Development of Urban Estate, mainly to adjust oustees of
Missing Link-II (Dhandra Road to Sidhwan Canal via Malerkotla
Road, Ludhiana)”. The main plank of attack of the appellants to
this notification is that land of the appellants could not be
acquired to rehabilitate other persons, and in the process
rendering the appellants homeless and landless. Such an action
was arbitrary and illegal which also amounted to depriving the
appellants of their livelihood. It was also argued that in the
process, the changes which made were much more serious
violating the master plan. It was also argued that the aforesaid
stated purpose is totally vague, since it only says that the same is
for the development of a residential urban estate. It was argued
that the public purpose of “residential” has been held by this
Court to be vague in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd.
JUDGMENT
6
Shafi :
14. Apart from the defect in the impugned
notif ication, as noticed above, we find that even
the "public purpose" which has been mentioned
in the schedule to the notification as
"residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys
no idea about the purpose of acquisition
rendering the notification as invalid in law.
There is no indication as to what type of
residential accommodation was proposed or for
whom or any other details. The State cannot
6 (1992) 2 SCC 168
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 32 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 32
acquire the land of a citizen for building some
residence for another, unless the same is in
'public interest" or for the benefit of the "public"
or an identifiable section thereof. In the
absence of the details about the alleged "public
purpose" for which the land was sought to be
acquired, no-one could comprehend as to why
the land was being acquired and therefore was
prevented from taking any further steps in the
matter.
[Emphasis Supplied]
29) It was also submitted that the notification acquiring land for the
Missing Link road is for an area of approx. 74.52 acres. Yet,
more than 55.41 acres of land has been acquired for adjusting
the oustees of the said road. Thus, the acquisition is for a far
greater area than what was required even as per the stated public
purpose inasmuch as 55.41 acres of land was sought to be given
to those from whom 74.52 acres of land was taken.
JUDGMENT
30) Mr. Gupta concluded his arguments with the submission that such
an acquisition was not at all necessary, apart from being illegal,
unfair, unjust and against the principles of natural justice as the
appellants are being ousted from their land in order to
accommodate, adjust and rehabilitate others who are similarly
situated as the appellants. In other words, the appellants are
being rendered oustees in order to accommodate other oustees.
Such a patently unjust and unfair action cannot, by any stretch of
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 33 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 33
imagination, be termed as 'public purpose' as grave harm, loss
and injustice is being caused to the appellants for no sustainable
reason. He also emphasised that the land from which the
appellants are being ousted, in order to accommodate other
oustees, is the sole source of livelihood for the appellants. Part of
the acquired land is agricultural, part of it is inhabited and part of
it has functioning industries. As such, there is no rationale
whatsoever in uprooting well established livelihoods merely to
accommodate others. The respondents action evidences
absolutely no application of mind as there is vacant agricultural
land nearby where the oustees could have been adjusted. It is
argued that the real reason behind present acquisition is that in
actual fact the respondent-government intends to use the
acquired land for profit-making purposes. It is submitted that the
JUDGMENT
respondents are planning to use the major part of the land under
acquisition for commercial purposes.
31) The aforesaid arguments of the appellants was sought to be
negated by Mr. Rakesh Khanna with the submission that the
specific stand was taken by the respondents that the eligible land
owners / structure holders of Missing Link-II road as well as urban
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 34 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 34
estate both will be considered for allotment of plot/house as per
oustee policy of the State Government. It was submitted that
there are 949 land owners involved in this acquired land for
Missing Link-II and urban estate. Firstly, it is only 48 of them who
are before this Court. Therefore, 901 of them have no objection
to the acquisition. Secondly, even out of the 48 owners, only 33
appellants were parties before the High Court and 15 have filed
SLP for the first time being SLP No. 14124 of 2012. Two of them
being appellants in SLP No. 15365 of 2012, have since withdrawn
the SLP.
32) After considering the submissions of counsel for the parties on
either side and on going through the records, we find force and
merit in the case set up by the respondents. The defence put up
JUDGMENT
by the respondent authorities, as noted above in the submissions
of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, appears to be attractive wherein it is
stated that the purpose of acquisition of this land is not only to
accommodate the oustees of the land owners whose land was
acquired for construction of Missing Link-I, the acquired land shall
be used to provide shelter to the appellants and others who will
be divested of their land. In this behalf, it is stated that all 949
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 35 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 35
land owners will be entitled for allotment of plots as per the
oustees policy.
33) It is also to be borne in mind that out of 949 land owners, whose
land is sought to be acquired by the instant impugned notification,
majority of them, numbering 901 persons, have raised no
objection to the acquisition and even accepted the compensation.
Only 48 affected persons challenged the notification before the
High Court. After the High Court dismissed the challenge vide
impugned judgment, out of these 48 only 15 had preferred to
come to this Court. We have also noted that as per the oustees
policy of rehabilitation, all persons who have built up structures
over the land, will be entitled for allotment of plot. There were
128 structures on the Missing Link-II and 36 structures in the
JUDGMENT
urban estates. Therefore, 164 structure holders will be entitled
for allotment of plots. Besides this, all 949 land owners will be
entitled for allotment of plots as per the oustees policy. As per the
plan for the area which is placed by the appellants at the time of
hearing, there are in total 452 residential plots only in the urban
estates which will be, by and large, sufficient for rehabilitation of
the eligible allottees. It was also brought to our notice that the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 36 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 36
Government is providing free registration/zero stamp duty if the
land owners purchase land within Punjab, equal to the amount of
compensation received, within two years from the date of
receiving of compensation. Several land owners, who have
received compensation, had already availed this benefit. For all
these reasons, we would not like to go into the validity of
challenge made to the second notification.
34) At the same time, it is necessary to reflect upon some pertinent
aspects of the case which were highlighted by the appellants. An
attempt was made by the appellants to show that there is vacant
agricultural land nearby which is more suitable for the purpose for
which appellants land is sought to be acquired. On this basis, a
suggestion was mooted that the Government should consider
JUDGMENT
acquiring the said land nearby as there is vacant agricultural or
barren land nearby. It was also argued that the notification
acquiring land for the Missing Link road is for an area of approx.
74.52 acres. Yet, more than 55.41 acres of land has been
acquired for adjusting the oustees of the said road. Thus, the
acquisition is for a far greater area than what was required even
as per the stated public purpose inasmuch as 55.41 acres of land
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 37 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 37
are sought to be given to those from whom 74.52 acres of land
was taken. However, it is not for this Court to consider as to
which particular piece of land is more suited for acquisition by the
authorities. Likewise, though, prima facie , it appears that
acquisition of 55.41 acres of land to rehabilitate the oustees
whose land acquired measuring 74.52 acres is quite substantial,
it is not for this Court to decide as to what should be the extent of
land that needs to be acquired for this purpose. It is for the
Government to look into these aspects. For this purpose, we give
liberty to the appellants to make a suitable representation to the
respondents in this behalf within a period of 30 days from today.
If such a representation is preferred, the same shall be
considered in accordance with law and decision thereupon shall
be taken within 2 months from said representation. However, this
JUDGMENT
liberty of making representation is going only to the appellants
herein, which benefit shall not enure to those who have not
approached this Court. We also expect that the Government
shall take a pragmatic view and would not consider the
representation with closed mind. While deciding the
representation, the authorities will particularly consider the
following aspects:
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 38 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 38
(a) Whether the land of the appellants herein, keeping in view
the total area involved, be released as not required if the
remaining land is sufficient for the purpose for which the
said land is acquired?
(b) Even if some more land is needed for the stated purpose,
whether it would be possible to release the land of the
appellants and acquire vacant agricultural or barren land
nearby which may be more suitable?
(c) It may also be kept in mind that the land of the appellants is
not only Abadi land, the appellants have their residential
houses or industrial/commercial premises as well.
(d) The authorities may also keep in mind the location of the
JUDGMENT
land of the appellants and consider as to whether different
chunks of land owned by the appellants are scattered in
between rest of the land acquired and on that count, is it
possible or not to hive off the land of the appellants?
35) However, we make it clear that while affording this opportunity to
the appellants to make a representation, we are not providing
fresh cause of action to the appellants, though, we expect the
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 39 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 39
respondents to consider the representation with open mind.
36) The upshot of the aforesaid discussion would be to allow these
appeals partly in the manner indicated above. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
.............................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Civil Appeal Nos. 3177-3178 of 2015 & Ors. Page 40 of 41
(arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 26770-26771 of 2011 & Ors.)
Page 40
JUDGMENT
Page 41