Supreme Court of India
SUBHASHGIR KHUSHALGIR GOSAVI AND ORS. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.
- Decided
- 18 March 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 3 S.C.R. 520 · 1996 INSC 402
- Also cited as
- AIR 1996 SC 3169
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted. Heard both the parties.
p. 520, margin F
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 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 Act, 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.
pp. 520–521, margin G
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 has taken a decision that acquiring the land for extension of the bus stand a.nd bus depot is in the public interest, it cannot be said that the exercise of the power is arbitrary.
p. 521, margin C
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 bus depot to some place in the out-skirts of city, extension itself will add to the congregati'on. 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.
p. 521, margin E
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 521, margin G