Subhashgir
Khushalgir Gosavi & Ors Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors
[1996] INSC 415 (18
March 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (4) 154 1996 SCALE (3)339
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
