Land Law Public Purpose

1
LAND ACQUISITION FOR 'PUBLIC PURPOSE' – A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
LALIT ANJANA*
ABSTARCT
The definition of ‘public purpose’ is inclusive and not precisely defined in the Act or the
constitution of India, which makes it possible for the government to stretch the public purpose
definition to its limit and even including acquisition of land for non-profit making private
companies. Based on the analysis of the present research work it can be held that the judiciary
play's important role in defining the public purpose and keeping a regular check on the misuse of
power vested with the state government to acquire land for the public purpose. The judiciary has
played a crucial role in evolving new principles with regard to acquisition of land and provided
justice to the people.
In spite of judicial interventions and directions, the power of land acquisition in the name of
public purpose has been grossly misused by the states. Even the new Act (Right to Fair
compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013)
has also failed to be a good replacement of the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to address the
misuse. The role and power of the government as the sole authority in deciding public purpose
should be reduced and role of the judiciary to protect the interest of the person whose land is
acquired should be increased.
KEYWORDS: Land Acquisition, Public purpose, Eminent Domain, Land bill
. * Advocate, LLB ( D.U CLC), LLM ( NALSAR). This research paper was submitted as LL.M. dissertation to NALSAR University of
Law, India in 2018.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

2
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Land Acquisition
1.3 Eminent Domain
1.4 Public Purpose
1.5 The Research problem
1.6 Scope and Objective of the Study
1.7 Research Methodology
1.8 Review of Literature
1.9 Scheme of the Study
CHAPTER – II
LAND ACQUISTION ACT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Eminent Domain
2.3 Constitutional right to property and Eminent Domain
2.4 Misuse of Eminent Domain power
2.4.1 Restriction the power
2.5 Reconciling the past, present and future act
2.5.1 Land Acquisition Act, 1896 (Past Act)
2.5.2 RRCTLARR Act 2013 (Present Act)
2.5.3 Land Bill, 2015 (Amendments Proposed)
2.6 Comparing Act of 1896, Act of 2013 and Amendment Bill of 2015
2.7 Land acquisition process
2.8 Summing up

3
CHAPTER-III
PUBLIC PURPOSE: THE CURRENT SCENARIO
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Concept of Public purpose
3.3 Public Purpose as per Statute
3.3.1 Comparison between the definition of public purpose under 1894 and 2013 Act.
3.4 Public Utility and Public Purpose
3.5 Public purpose: Justifiability
3.5.1 How it is challenged
3.5.2 How it is defended
3.6 Approaches towards the land acquisition
3.7 Project Affected Persons
3.8 Public Purpose In general
3.9 Summing up
CHAPTER - IV
JUDICIAL PERCEPTION ON LAND ACQUISITION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Yamuna Expressway case
4.3 Sooraram Pratap Reedy Case
4.4 Singur Land Acquisition Case
4.5 Daulat Singh Surana Case
4.6 Veil of Public Purpose
4.7 Summing up
CHAPTER-V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Suggestions

4
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The principle of land acquisition rests upon the maxim (1) ‘salus populi est supreme lex,’ i.e., the
welfare of people or the public is the law paramount. (2) ‘Necessitas major est quam privata’,
i.e., public necessity is greater than private. According to the maxim ‘audi alterum partem,’
Individual shall be heard on the matter before he is deprived of his property by the state.
Compensation can be given by the state only by the authority of law. The above principles are
stressed by the article 300A of the constitution of India which runs: - “article 300A- No person
shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law”.
“The land acquisition Act is of exceptional character. It aims at promoting important public
interests and to the interests of such paramount importance, private interest may justifiably be
subordinate.” This passage is quoted in In re government and Nana Kothare and Others, where it
is put forward that if there is any ambiguity in the words of statute, one construction would lead
to hardship to public and another construction would lead hardship to private individual, then it
will be appropriate to pay regards to the balance of inconvenience.
Land acquisition Act 1894 governed the process of land acquisition till 2013 but on 1 January
2014, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force which now governs the land acquisition process in India
and it has redefined the definition of public purpose and restricted its scope, earlier definition of
the term “public purpose” was very wide and because of this wide scope for interpretation
government abused the power of eminent domain for acquisition of land for public purpose.
1.2 WHAT IS LAND ACQUISITION
In India, land acquisition is a process through which state or union government acquires the
private land for various public purposes which may include acquisition for urbanization,
development of infrastructure or industrialization of private property and compensation is
provided to the landowner whose property is acquired. It cannot be disputed that acquisition
means and implies the acquiring of the entire title of the expropriated owner, whatever the nature
or extent of that title might be. The entire bundle of rights which were vested in the original
holder would pass on acquisition to the acquirer leaving nothing in the former. In taking
possession, on the other hand, the title to the property admittedly remains in the original holder,
though he is excluded from possession or enjoyment of the property. It is therefore essential that

5
in order to constitute acquisition or requisitioning there must be, transfer of the ownership or
right to possession of any property to the State or to a corporation owned or controlled by the
State.
1.3 EMINENT DOMAIN
The simple definition of the term "eminent domain" is the power of the sovereign to take
property for public use without the owner's consent. The meaning of the power in its irreducible
terms is, (a) power to take (b) without the owner's consent, (c) for the public use. The concept of
the public use has been inextricably related to an appropriate exercise of the power and is
considered essential in any statement of its meaning. Payment of compensation, though not an
essential ingredient of the connotation of the term, is an essential element of the valid exercise of
such power. Courts have defined "eminent domain" so as to include this universal limitation as
an essential constituent of its meaning. Authority is universal in support of the amplified
definition of "eminent domain" as the power of the sovereign to take property for public use
without the owner's consent upon making just compensation. The counterpart to the law of
compulsory purchase in England and power of eminent domain in the USA is traditionally
known as the law of land acquisition and compensation of India. This sovereign power
empowers the state to appropriate and command for itself lands for some public purpose. The
exercise of this power is justified even if the owner of property does not desire to sell it, based
upon the maxim ‘slaus popli est supreme lex’ i.e., the welfare of the people is paramount law,
therefore the good of greater number is paramount and the right of individual must be given way
before such a paramount law. Doctrine of eminent domain means the supreme power of the
government under which state can appropriate private property for the public projects such as
construction of dams, roads, urbanization, industrialization, and development of infrastructure
even though the owner of the property is unwilling to sell or negotiate the price for its sale and
paying fair compensation in lieu of acquisition. Article 300A replaced Article 31(1). Now Article
300A provides for the compulsory acquisition of land. The State government may acquire land
for public purpose and this power of the state government is known as the power of eminent
domain. The requirement of public purpose must be satisfied by the government whenever land
is acquired by the virtue of the power of eminent domain.

6
1.4 PUBLIC PURPOSE
Public purpose definition is inclusive in nature. Any work from which public derives benefit can
be termed as the public purpose. It is not possible to give precise and rigid definition to the term
public purpose because public purpose varies with time and prevailing conditions of a particular
society. Law Commission report on Land acquisition Act 1894. “We are living in a rapidly
changing world. The atomic age is upon us with its cataclysmic effects on the order of the
society. Our fundamental law is no static. Quite the contrary, it’s dynamic and progressive. It,
therefore, does, as it must respond to the changing times. It is impossible to enumerate all the
uses which may be classified as public uses to authorize an acquisition of private property by
eminent domain, such a venture would not be impossible, it would be equally futile. The court
has repeatedly and wisely refused to define ‘public use’ and for the cogent reason. Any definition
would be unworkable, limiters and circumscribed. What may become a ‘public use’ in the future
cannot be foretold by mortal man. All we can do is to venture predication as certain as day
follows night, that there will be many public uses in the future that we never dreamed of at the
present time.”
1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM

• What kind of acts can be considered as public purpose and how do you define public
purpose?
• What are the loopholes present in the current land acquisition Act?
• Whether the current 2013 land acquisition Act is improvement over old colonial 1894Act
and what are the shortcomings of the Land ordinance bill of 2015?
• Whether the government is abusing its eminent domain power because of the wide scope
for interpretation of the inclusive definition of public purpose?
•
1.6 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE
In India, the Public purpose is the sole justification for the acquisition of land. Therefore the
most important aspect of this research work is to focus on the question of public purpose. Given
the inclusive nature of public purpose definition and wider scope for interpretation make it
necessary to differentiate between what constitutes public purpose and what doesn’t. The study
focuses on the justifiability of public purpose and abuse of domain power.

7
• To analyse the misuse of sovereign power exercised by the government for land
acquisition in the name of public purpose.
• To analyse the definition of public purpose and to examine how it changed during the
course of time.
• To study and analyse landmark cases of land acquisition
To recommend solutions for making the whole land acquisition process more simplified,
transparent, and people friendly.
1.7 RESEARCH METHOD
The research method used for the present research work is primarily doctrinal in nature. Further
historical, comparative and analytical method has been also used. Landmark judgment of The
Supreme Court and high courts, various reports and notifications, textbooks, relevant statutes,
and internet source has been used to collect relevant information.
Primary source-land Acquisition Act 1894, Constitution of India, the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(LARR), case laws etc. Secondary source- Textbooks, newspaper articles, published articles in
various journals, thesis from sodh Ganga and various relevant websites etc.
1.8 LITERATURE REVIEW
Amlanjyoti Goswami, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law, Politics and the
Elusive Search for Balance - this article highlights the main issues in the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (LARR Act) which includes eminent domain, public purpose, compensation, rehabilitation
and resettlement, and other legal issues. In this article number of recent cases on public purpose
have been discussed to provide clarity regarding the concept of public purpose. This articles
further explains in detail the concept of consent, rehabilitation, and resettlement, urgency clause,
and compensation. Further, this article also touches upon the issue of SEZ related acquisition. At
the end of this article, the author suggested Land pooling as an alternative to Eminent Domain,

8
according to which the landowners agree to land being acquired without any compensation, the
land is developed and consolidated and smaller reconstituted plots are subsequently transferred
to landowners after infrastructure and common areas are developed.1
Kritya Sinha & Neha Singh, “land acquisition in India: history and present scenario”- this article
highlights the evolution of land acquisition law and focuses upon the right to fair compensation
and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) bill, 2015
which was introduced in the Lok Sabha to amends the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013)
with special focus on Replacement of the term 'private entity' with 'private enterprise', bringing
the provisions for compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement under other related Acts such as
the railways Act and the national highways Act in consonance with the LARR Act, creation of
five special categories of project exempted from social impact assessment, consent provision
and limits on acquisition of irrigated multi cropped land. The five category of land use includes
defense, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors, and infrastructure projects
including Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. Further, in this article explain in detail
procedure of land acquisition and major drawbacks of land acquisition Act 1894. This article
ends with the conclusion without providing any constructive recommendations.2
G.rahuram and simi sunny, “Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition,
rehabilitation and resettlement ordinance: a Process Perspective” This article deals the role and
influences of government, industry and landowners at different stages of land acquisition in
India. This research paper has analyzed the acts of land acquisition in depth and with the help of
diagrams and statistical chart and comparison chart present information in most precise manner.
But this article focused too much on land acquisitions acts and ignoring the detailed study on the
concept like public purposes and analysis of cases on land acquisition3.
1
Amlanjyoti Goswami, ‘Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law, Politics and the Elusive Search
for Balance’, (Jan. 18, 2018, 05:45),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292343499_Land_Acquisition_Rehabilitation_and_Resettlement_Law_Po
litics_and_the_Elusive_Search_for_Balance.html.
2
Kritya Sinha & Neha Singh, ‘land acquisition in India: history and present scenario’, (Jan. 22, 2018, 06:25),
http://jlsr.thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Kritya-Neha-Singh.pdf.html.
3
G.rahuram and simi sunny, ‘Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and
resettlement ordinance: a Process Perspective’, (Jan. 26, 2018, 15:25),

9
Amlanjyoti Goswami , ‘Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law and Politics’ - This article
explores key issues in the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and compares it with the old 1894 act with the help of
comparison table and flow chart. This article looks in depth at rehabilitation and resettlement, project
affected persons, social impact assessment, consent clause, concept of public purpose, urgency clause
etc. On the concept of public purpose this articles infers that judiciary would not be stopped from
looking into looking into abuse of the land use even when the new 2013 LARR Act does not provide the
clear and precise definition of public purpose.4
1.9 SCHEME
The framework of the present study is divided into five chapters
Chapter I: Introduction
The introductory chapter provides a brief introduction to what is land acquisition, public
purpose, and eminent domain. This chapter also highlights the research questions, scope, and
objective of the study, literature reviews, hypothesis, research method, and scheme.
Chapter II: Land acquisition act: past, present and future

This part compares the old 1894 land acquisition law with the new 2013 Act by highlighting
their key features and also to look at the changes being brought about now by the 2015
amendments.
In this chapter, efforts are made to examine the eminent domain dogma and constitutional
provisions which are related to the power of eminent domain.
Chapter III: Public Purpose: Indian Concept
In this chapter land acquisition act of 1986, 2013 and 2015 is interpreted and analyzed in the
context of public purpose. The main emphasis of this chapter is on the concept of public purpose,
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Right%20to%20Fair%20Compensation%20and%20Transparenc
y%20in%20Land%20Acquisition.pdf.html.
4
Amlanjyoti Goswami, ‘Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law and Politics’, (Jan.03, 2018,
22:44), http://iihs.co.in/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/Land_Acquisition_Law_and_Politics_Amlanjyoti_Goswami.pdf.html.

10
the justifiability of public purpose and how the concept of public purpose evolved with the help
of decided cases.
Chapter IV: Judicial perception on land Acquisition
In this chapter number of cases have been discussed by the researcher which revolved around the
expression public purpose. Further based on the various case study suggestions were made like
the formation of independent negotiation committee.
Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions
This chapter includes the summary of the whole research work, findings made during the
research and recommendations to make the whole process of land acquisition more simplified
and effective. Inadequacies in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 have also been highlighted and
suggestions are made remove these inadequacies.
2 LAND ACQUISTION ACT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The primary owner of the land is the king or in the modern sense the elected government in
power. The right of ownership will always remain with the king or the elected government
whenever the land is required for public purpose. Notwithstanding the fact that there is
transferred of land to an individual for agriculture or another purpose. 5 No person shall be
deprived of his right to property except through the due process of law, which conflicts with the
power of the state or government to acquire property under the doctrine of eminent domain.
2.2 EMINENT DOMAIN
The doctrine of eminent domain, Means the power of the king or Government to take the
property of any person for the public purpose. This exercise of sovereign power is based upon
5
Dr. N. Maheshwara Swamy’s, ‘Land Laws’, (Asia Law House, Hyderabad, Ist ed., 2006), p 4.

11
two maxims, namely, SALUS POPULI EST SUPREME LEX which means that the interest and
claim of the whole community are always the paramount, and NECESSITA PUBLIC MAJOR
EST QUAM, which means that public necessity is greater than private interest and claim of an
individual. Therefore it said that acquisition of land must be for some public purpose and
secondly fair compensation to be paid6 .As the “Wikipedia, The free dictionary”-“In law,
eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without
the owner’s consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the
acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of the public project such as road,
and the owner of the requires property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.
Today, the doctrine of eminent domain is prevalent mostly in every civilized country and which
means the supreme power of government or state to acquire the private property of any person
for a public purpose and paying fair compensation in lieu of acquisition.7The land acquisition Act
1894, gave the authority to union and state government to acquire land for the public purpose
which acted as a pathway to exercise the power of eminent domain. In 2014 the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013(“LARR Act”) was brought into force to replace the 1894 law. This Act was designed to
make the land acquisition a democratic process through the participation and consent, but
changes which were brought through this act were short live because according to the newly
formed BJP government in 2014, this act was obstructing the democratic process and not acting
as a stimulant for economic growth. Therefore government viewed this act directly opposed to
the notion of eminent domain
2.3 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN
In clear terms, eminent domain is embodied in the constitution of India.8The Constitution of

India in its original un-amended form, guaranteed under article 19(1) (f) to the Indian citizen a
right to acquire, hold and dispose of property but however Art 19 (5) permitted the state to
impose by law reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public.9The right
to property was made stronger by article 31, according to which not only right of private
6
Ibdi N.Ma
7
Ibdi.N.MA
8
Ibid., P. 7
9
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/property/property_rights.html

12
property ownership but right to dispose of property subject to reasonable restriction is guaranteed
by the constitution. The article also states that acquisition of property by the authority of law
may be made only for the public purpose and compensation to be paid to the person whose
property has been taken.10
It was held in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952) 1 SCR 889,”Shorn of all its incidents,
the simple definition of the power to acquire compulsorily or of the term "eminent domain" is the
power of the sovereign to take property for public use without the owner's consent. The meaning
of the power in its irreducible terms is, (a) power to take (b) without the owner's consent, (c) for
the public use. The concept of the public use has been inextricably related to an appropriate
exercise of the power and is considered essential in any statement of its meaning. Payment of
compensation, though not an essential ingredient of the connotation of the term, is an essential
element of the valid exercise of such power. Courts have defined "eminent domain" so as to
include this universal limitation as an essential constituent of its meaning. Authority is universal
in support of the amplified definition of "eminent domain" as the power of the sovereign to take
property for public use without the owner's consent upon making just compensation”.11
Therefore it can be concluded that Article 31 was a pathway through which power of eminent
domain was exercised by paying compensation.
Article 19(1) (f) which was one of the fundamental rights was removed and article 300A was
inserted in its place and Article 31 was also deleted and replaced by the article 31A to save the
laws providing for the acquisition of estates by the 44th constitutional (amendment) Act, in
1978.12
31A. Saving of laws providing for the acquisition of estates, etc. ( 1 ) Notwithstanding anything
contained in Article 13, no law providing for:
(a) The acquisition by the State of any estate or of any rights therein or the extinguishment or
modification of any such rights, or
(b) The taking over of the management of any property by the State for a limited period either in
the public interest or in order to secure the proper management of the property,
10
http://www.elections.in/political-corner/article-31-of-the-constitution-of-india/
11
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/49043/
12
Ibid

13
shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges
any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19: Provided that where such law is a law
made by the Legislature of a State, the provisions of this article shall not apply thereto unless
such law, having been reserved for the consideration of the President, has received his assent:
Provided further that where any law makes any provision for the acquisition by the State of any
estate and where any land comprised therein is held by a person under his personal cultivation, it
shall not be lawful for the State to acquire any portion of such land as is within the ceiling limit
applicable to him under any law for the time being in force or any building or structure standing
thereon or appurtenant thereto, unless the law relating to the acquisition of such land, building or
structure, provides for payment of compensation at a rate which shall not be less than the market
value.13
According to this, the government can acquire the property of the people and by doing so, the
fundamental rights mentioned in Article 14 and 19 of Indian Constitution shall not be violated. In
other words, Article 31A of Indian Constitution was immune to Article 14 and 19 of Indian
Constitution that provides for right to equality and the right to freedom respective. Article 300A
Article 300A reads as follows: Article 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by
authority of law- “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.14
This article only imposes one limitation on the power of eminent domain that is the authority of
law.
This amendment had two immediate implications :( i) The Right to Property would now be a
Constitutional Right and not a Fundamental Right. A legislation violating the constitutional right
to property could now be challenged only in High Courts and not directly in the Supreme Court,
(ii)Due to the deletion of Article 31 the Government was no longer under an obligation to
compensate persons whose land had been acquired as per a law passed by Parliament.15
The apex court in the case of Rajiv Sarin and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others held
that. the inherent powers of public purpose and eminent domain are embodied in Article, and
Entry 42 List III, "Acquisition and Requisitioning of Property" which necessarily connotes that
13
Constitution of India, Article 31A
14
Ibid., Art 300A
15
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/48090/10/10_chapter%203.pdf

14
the acquisition and requisitioning of property will be for a public use and for compensation and
whenever a person is deprived of his property, the limitations as implied in Article 300A, as well
as Entry 42 List III, will come into the picture and the Court can always examine the legality and
validity of the legislation in question. It was further submitted that awarding nil compensation is
squarely amenable to judicial review under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India. It
was further held in this case that under Article 300A of the Constitution the State can proceed to
acquire land for specified use but by enacting a law through State legislature or by Parliament
and in the manner having the force of law. When the State exercises the power of acquisition of a
private property thereby depriving the private person of the property, provision is generally made
in the statute to pay compensation to be fixed or determined according to the criteria laid down
in the statute itself.16
2.4 MISSUSE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
State enjoy wide discretionary power while deciding what may constitute public purpose because
the definition of public purpose in 1984 act is inclusive and not clear. In sate of BOMBAY Vs.
R.S NANJI17it was held that, “In each case all the facts and circumstances will require to be
closely examined in order to determine whether a 'public purpose' has been established Prima
facie the Government is the best judge as to whether 'public purpose' is served by issuing a
requisition order, but it is not the sole judge. The courts have the jurisdiction and it is their duty
to determine the matter whenever a question is raised whether a requisition order is or is not for a
Public purpose”. Further, it was held in greater Noida case that “Legal malice is gibberish unless
juristic clarity keeps it separate from the popular concept of personal vice. Pithily put, bad faith
which invalidates the exercise of power—sometimes called colorable exercise or fraud on power
and oftentimes overlaps motives, passions, and satisfaction—is the attainment of ends beyond
the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. The
action is bad where the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power
is entrusted, goaded by extraneous considerations, good or bad, but irrelevant to the entrustment.
When the custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for the
promotion of which the power is vested the court calls it a colorable exercise and is undeceived
16
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1214980/
17
AIR 1956 SC 294

15
by illusion”18 in this case, the veil of public purpose was used to acquire land to serve the private
interest of builders and for this people were misled in the name of planned industrial
development to believe that their land being used for public purpose.19
2.4.1 RESTRICTION ON THE POWER
• The property acquired must be taken for a “public use;”

• The use must be necessary and proper.
• The state must pay “just compensation” in exchange for the property.
• No person must be deprived of his/her property without due process of law.20
2.5 RECONCILING THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ACT:

2.5.1 LAND ACQUISTION ACT, 1894
The 1894 Act was undemocratic and suffered from number of shot comings and enabled
compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes and companies. The provision of issuance of
public notice and holding of inquiry were mere formalities, there was no provision of landowners
consent, rehabilitation and resettlement. Because of which most of the acquisition done ended up
in litigation resulting in stalling of infrastructure development projects.21 1894 act, had two
routes of land acquisition one was land acquisition for government which was through part II
whereas for the private companies part VII was used, but even in case of land acquisition for
private companies it had to be for public purpose.
2.5.2 RFCTLARR ACT, 2013

Paradigm shift in the land acquisition process has been marked through the 2013 Act which
contained various provisions to safeguard the interest of project affected persons. This act
ensured that there is no forcible acquisition of land through consent clause in case acquisition for
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Devendra Kumar and Others reported in
18
2011(12) SCC 375

19
https://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2017/index.php/Poster_Board_01-07-Sonawane-
698_paper.pdf?page=downloadPaper&filename=Poster_Board_01-07-Sonawane-
698_paper.pdf&form_id=698&form_version=final.
20
https://eminentdomain.uslegal.com/constitutional-requirements/
21
http://psalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ENewslineMarch2015.pdf

16
PPP projects and private companies. The new applies retrospectively to land acquisition done
under the old 1894 Act, where award is yet to be made.22
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 is also called land acquisition act 2013 replaced the old British era
enacted Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
The main objectives of the act are:
• The process of land acquisition is carried out in consultation with gram sabhas and self-
government to ensure that least amount of disturbance is caused to the affected persons
• To ensure that fair compensation is provided to the affected families and providing
adequate provisions for the rehabilitation and resettlement.
The main criticism of the above law is as follows:
• Complex procedure – Social impact assessment and its approval from the expert
committee is intertwined with bureaucratic hassle and red tapism because of which cost
of the project rises and it may lose its relevance due to complex procedure and delay.
• Affected families Consent- Act lays down that it is necessary to take the consent of
affected families for land acquisition for purposes specified in the act. This act does not
provides clarification regarding when to get consent, how to get consent and what
happens in case there is no consent23
2.5.3 LAND BILL 2015

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Amendment) Bill, 2015 is passed by the Lok Sabha but got stuck in the Rajya
Sabha. It is done primarily for the purpose of including those 13 acts under the legislation which
were exempted under land acquisition act 2013. Social impact Assessment clause, Restriction on
the acquisition of multi cropped land clause and Mandatory consent requirement clause of 80%
of landowners in case of private projects and 70% in case of public private partnership projects is
not applicable to the five categories of land use mentioned in the 2015 bill. They are: (i) defense,
22
Ibid.
23
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land%20and%20R%20and%20R/Note%20on%20Amendments%20of%2
0LARR%20Bill,%202015.pdf

17
(ii) rural infrastructure, (iii) affordable housing (iv) industrial corridors (v) infrastructure projects
including Public Private Partnership projects where land is owned by the
government.24Commission of the offence by the government- According to the LARR ACT,
2013 if the offence is committed by the government, the head of the department would be held
guilty unless he could prove that he had exercised due diligence necessary for the prevention of
the commission of the offence and that the offence was committed without his knowledge. The
2015 bill removes this section and adds a provision according to which if government official
commits an offence, then he cannot be held guilty or prosecuted without the prior sanction of the
government.25
2.6 Table below compares the 1894, 2013 and 2015 Act.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 The Right to Fair Compensation Ordinance/LARR
and Transparency in Land (Amendment) Bill, 2015
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement, 2013
Consent
There was no provision for In case of Government project The bill exempt Five types
consent requirement there is no requirement of of projects from the
consent, but in case of private provision of consent which
projects and private partnership includes (i) defence, (ii)
projects consent of 80% and rural infrastructure, (iii)
70% of land owners is required. affordable housing, (iv)
industrial corridors, (v)
Infrastructure Projects.
Private ‘entity’ in place of private ‘company’
24
Supra note 21
25
http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-to-fair-compensation-and-transparency-in-land-acquisition-
rehabilitation-and-resettlement-amendment-bill-2015-3649/

18
The provisions of the Act is No change. The term private entity has
applicable when acquisition been substituted in place of
of land is for public purpose the term private company.
for private companies. The This that acquisition of
expression company was one land can be for a
included in the Companies partnership, corporation,
Act, 1956 or under the proprietorship, NGOs,
societies registration act, charity bodies or other
1860. entity. The bill further
changes companies
Act,1956 with the
Companies Act, 2013.
Social Impact Assessment

No provision. For Every type of project social 1. SIA not needed for the
impact Assessment is exempted projects
mandatory. falling under the five
categories listed above.
Public purpose
The term ‘public purpose’ This act has restricted the term The 2015 law has tried to
was left vague and provided public purpose to land to an widen the scope of purpose
wide discretionary power to extent for strategic purposes, by reducing the rigour of
the government infrastructural projects, PAFs, 2013 provisions according
planned development or to which anything and
improvement of village or urban everything will go as
sites or residential purpose for public purpose.
weaker section and persons
residing in areas affected by
natural calamities or displaced

19
2.7 LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS
EXHIBIT 1: Land Acquisition Process (LLA, 1894 act)
Preliminary Notification under Sec

4(1) & 6(1)
Intended acquisition Enquiry into objection Survey for measurement

Valuation and marking land
Intended acquisition final The final declaration to be issued

declaration within a year from the date of
issuance of preliminary notification
Notification of award Award to be passed within the two

years from the date of declaration
publication
Taking possession of land
Compensation payment

20
EXHIBIT: 2 Land Acquisition process (LARR, 2013)
Appropriate Government receives the

proposal
Examined by the
Appropriate Government Conduct Social independent expert
Impact Assessment (Sec 4-6) group under sec 7
Report on status of
Pre alternative sites
Notification submitted by collector
Stage
Public purpose and SIA legitimacy Consent of 80% of
examined and approved by the affected sought in
appropriate government (Sec 8) project falling under sec
2(b)
Publication of Preliminary
notification for acquisition
(Sec 11) Finalization of R&R Scheme,
prepare and Review (Sec 16-17)
Public hearing and disposal

Notification
of objections (Sec 15)
Stage
Draft declaration and R&R scheme published (Sec 19)
Award

21
2.8 Summing Up:
Acquisition was carried out without taking into consideration the plight of the person whose land
was sought to be acquired therefore the only thing the acquiring authority has to do is just form
intention to acquire land. Whereas the 2013 RARRR act ensured that there is no forcible
acquisition of land for this consent clause is introduced in cases where land acquisition for PPP
projects and for private companies. There was no proper mechanism to check the land
acquisition process. Provision for hearing under section 5A was provided but it was not taken
seriously, on the other hand RAFCTLL 2013 act provides number of checks and balances in
form of SIA, panchayat and gram sabhas participations, Independent and monitoring
committees26The 2015 Law has tried to address industry concerns by reducing the rigour of some
of the provisions of the 2013 Act and making it easier for government to acquire land for private
companies.27 The amendments brought through 2015 bill are drafted in hasty manner and
without any proper consultations. Removing the consent clause is pro corporate because there is
difference between acquisition of land and purchase of land, during the acquisition of land owner
is not willing to part away his land, therefore there is no rationale for removing the consent
clause for the five categories mentioned above which is very broad and which can be extended to
comprise any project. The social impact assessment clause has been repealed. The delay due to
SIA requires solution that could be achieved by cutting red tapism etc. The land acquisition
process should be transparent and smooth for ensuring development but at the same time it is
important look at the concerns of the affected person’s otherwise there will be dissatisfaction
among the public and protests.28
3 PUBLIC PURPOSE: THE CURRENT SCENARIO
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Compensation is a problem which is of least concern. Corporate sector has thrown up this as a
problem because they feel that this problem can be solved by giving more money. Land use and
how do you define public purpose are the main issues which need to be addressed. The need of
26
http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-to-fair-compensation-and-transparency-in-land-acquisition-
rehabilitation-and-resettlement-amendment-bill-2015-3649/
27
http://psalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ENewslineMarch2015.pdf
28
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land%20and%20R%20and%20R/Note%20on%20Amendments%20of%2
0LARR%20Bill,%202015.pdf

22
the hour is to look at the land use in a holistic perspective and the public purpose definition has
to go beyond the old colonial interpretation. Land is acquired for several public purpose but the
main question is when it is justifiable to acquired land. Land is acquired for several projects
which serves the public purpose like acquisition for public private partnership projects, private
projects and government project. According to the current definition of the public purpose -
defence projects, projects related to housing for the poor’s, infrastructure projects among others
qualifies as public purpose.
There was no provision for the rehabilitation and resettlement for displaces families under the
1894 Act it was just the compensation that was provided. The Supreme Court directed the
government in number of its judgment to replace the old colonial 1894 act and pointed out to
deal with the issues with determination of fair compensation and what constitutes public purpose,
etc., under the land acquisition act of 1894. To end this the Government came up the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.29
The definition of the term public purpose has been expanded under the present 2013 LLAR act.
The role of the private enterprises has been legitimized by the inclusion of companies under the
definition of public purpose. This definition of public purpose and its interpretation is in line
with the judgment of Kelo v. city of New London, In this case it was held that the role and
existence of private entities in the city planning for revitalization is not less than public
purpose.30 If elements of public purpose are present then the presence of private entities does not
render the purpose less ‘public’.31The concept of public purpose has been considered in a
number of cases but none of them have laid down a concrete definition. The supreme court of
India in Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors vs Distt. Collector, Ranga it was held that: "Public
purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the Community or locality and,
therefore, the legislature has left it to the State (Government) to decide what public purpose is
and also to declare the need of a given land for the purpose. The legislature has left the discretion
29
Joyita, Land Acquisition: An overview of proposed amendments to the law ,
http://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/?p=3515
30
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (205)
31
Amlanjyoti Goswami, Supra note 4

23
to the Government regarding public purpose. The Government has the sole and absolute
discretion in the matter".32
3.2 CONCEPT OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
The definition of public purpose is inclusive and widest amplitude should be given to its
definition. Giving exclusive, precise or rigid definition to the public purpose is not possible
because the definition of public purpose varies according to the prevalent condition and needs of
a particular locality and time. The definition of public purpose should be elastic and it can be
said that any work which provides benefit or advantage to the public can be termed as the public
purpose.33
It was held in the State of Bihar vs. shri kameshwar singh34 that "Whatever furthers the general
interests of the community as opposed to the particular interests of the individual must be
regarded as a public purpose. The Onward March of civilization our notions as to the scope of
the general interest of the community are fast changing and widening with the result that our old
and narrower notions as to the sanctity of the private interest of the individual can no longer stem
the forward flowing tide of time and must necessarily give way to the broader notions of the
general interest of the community. The emphasis is unmistakable shifting from the individual to
the community". In Thambiran vs. state of Madras35 it was further held that “It is not essential
that the entire community or even a considerable portion should directly enjoy or participate in
an improvement in order to constitute a public use. The modern and more liberal view is that it is
not an essential condition of public use that the property should be transferred to public
ownership or for the public use and that it is sufficient that the public derives advantage from the
scheme. According to this view, it is no objection to the validity of an acquisition that it is in
favor of a private corporation or of individuals provided it results in the public advantage."
3.3 PUBLIC PURPOSE AS PER STATUTE
32
Sooraram Pratap Reddy & Ors vs Distt. Collector, Ranga Reddy, 5 September, 2008
33
Sanjiva roy’s , Law of land acquisition and compensation, volume 1, 6th edition, Law book co. p.32
34
(1952)SCR 869
35
AIR 1952 Mad 756, (1952) 2 MLJ 208

24
The RFCTLARR came into force on January 1, 2014 which integrated rehabilitation and
resettlement and social impact assessment with the Land acquisition. The 2013 Act overrode the
old colonial land acquisition Act, 1894 which was criticized for providing absolute power to the
government for acquiring land in the name of public purpose. In May 2014 NDA government
came into power and amended the RFCTLARR , 2013 because of the concerns raised by the
industry mainly regarding the delays faced due to the compulsory requirement of SIA, consent
requirement and increased project cost because of R&R , increase in the amount of
compensation but this bill still pending in the Rajya Sabha. The RFCTLARR, 2013 is applicable
to all the land acquisition whether done by the state or central governments except the state of
Jammu & Kashmir. The provisions like SIA, R&R, and compensation cannot be applied to the
land acquired under the 13 central Acts which including the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005,
the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, The National Highways Act, 1956, the Railways Act, 1989, The
Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957, etc. The Act is applicable when:
• The land is acquire by the government for its own use, including land acquired for public
sector undertaking.
• The land is acquired by the land with the intention of transferring it for the use of private
company for the specific stated public purpose.
• Acquisition of land by the government for immediate and declared use by private
companies for public purpose.36
The justification for the exemption of these 13 Acts can be found in the statement made by the
standing committee according to which, “There is a slight difference in en mass acquisition and
row acquisition. The row acquisition is like roads, railways, power supply and all where a very
little land is being acquired. The reservation of these concerned Ministries is that if we are to
apply R & R to them, then they will have to provide that infrastructure which we have mentioned
in Schedule III which is extensive. For rehabilitation, they will have to set up a school,
community centers and other facilities like post offices, roads, etc. Now, for a small chunk of
land they say that if we have to be governed by R & R facilities as per the Bill, then it will not
serve the purpose. That is why, these Acts were actually considered and we thought that row
36
https://www.gktoday.in/academy/article/the-land-acquisition-act-2013-and-the-recent-amendment/

25
acquisition should not actually form part. Nevertheless, the government has kept the powers with
itself that in case it is required that under Section 98, we can make these R & R facilities
applicable to these Acts.”37
National Alliance of people’s movement (NAPM) advisor Medha patkar said that, “We are at a
new point today, there are mixed feelings regarding the new law. On the one hand, it’s a good
thing that an old law by British is being replaced by a new one due to numerous urban and rural
movements, on the other hand there is a lot to be done."38 The National Alliance Of People's
Movement (NAPM) has been demanding changes in new land act, The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
are:-The definition of the public purpose should be restrictively defined, provisions of 2013 land
acquisition act should be applicable to the exempted 13 central act, no forcible acquisition of
land which is being used for agriculture, consent and direct involvement of people through
various agencies and majority of gram sabhas in every project.39
Social activist Medha Patkar criticized the move to amend key provisions of the Land
Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Ms Patkar said, “The consent and
‘social impact assessment’ (SIA) provision of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency was
introduced to do away with the anomalies in the colonial Act, since farmers and those dependent
on the land were never consulted or made a participant in the process of development planning.
Huge tracts of fertile land were acquired at throw away prices and given to private and public
corporations in the name public purposes. It will be a retrograde step if we were to go to back to
the colonial process of forced land acquisition with no regard for impact of land acquisition on
the people, environment and democratic institutions that need to be consulted and their consent
taken in the process of SIA.”40
37
Standing committee report 2011
38
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/26107185.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text
&utm_campaign=cppst
39
Supra note 3
40
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/medha-patkar-opposed-to-amendments-
to-new-land-act/article6354819.ece

26
3.3.1 Table below provides the comparison between the land acquisition Act 1894 and the
LARR 2013 on the definition of public purpose.
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 Land Acquisition Act, 1894
for strategic purposes relating to naval, Absent.

military, air force, and armed forces of the Land acquired for any such purpose would be
Union, including central paramilitary forces considered as public purpose
or any work vital to national security or
defence of India or State police, safety of the
people41
for infrastructure projects: for a corporation owned or controlled by the

excluding private hospitals, private State46
educational institutions and private hotels.42
for any other scheme of development
projects related to agriculture and allied sponsored by Government or with the prior
activities set up or owned by the appropriate approval of the appropriate Government, by a
Government or by a farmers' cooperative or local authority47
by an institution set up under a statute43
for planned development of land from public
project for industrial corridors or mining funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of
activities, national investment and Government and subsequent disposal thereof
manufacturing zones44 in whole or in part by lease, assignment or
outright sale with the object of securing
project for water conservation structures, further development as planned.48
41
The right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013,
Section 2 (1) (a)
42
Ibid., sec 2 (1) (b) (i)
43
Ibid., sec 2 (1) (b) (ii)
44
Ibid., sec 2 (1) (b) (iii)
46
Land Acquisition Act, 1896, Section 3 (f) (iv)
47
Ibid., sec 3(f) (vii)
48
Ibid., sec 3(f) (iii)

27
sanitation, Government aided educational and

research schemes or institutions, sports, health The provision of land for carrying out any
care, tourism, transportation or space educational, housing, health or slum clearance
programme or any infrastructure facility as scheme sponsored by Government or by any
may be notified in this regard by the Central authority established by Government for
Government and after tabling of such carrying out any such scheme49
notification in Parliament45
project for project affected families, for for residential purposes to the poor or landless
housing for such income groups, as may be or to persons residing in areas affected by
specified from time to time by the appropriate natural calamities, or to persons displaced or
Government, for residential purposes to the affected by reason of the implementation of
poor or landless or to persons residing in any scheme undertaken by Government, any
areas affected by natural calamities, or to local authority or a corporation owned or
persons displaced or affected by reason of the controlled by the State51
implementation of any scheme undertaken by
the Government, any local authority or a
corporation owned or controlled by the State50
project for planned development or the the provision of village-sites, or the extension,
improvement of village sites or any site in the planned development or improvement of
urban areas or provision of land for residential existing village-sites53
purposes for the weaker sections in rural and the provision of land for town or rural
urban areas.52 planning54
45
Ibid., sec 2 (1) b (iv - vii)
49
Ibid., sec 3(f) (vi)
50
RFCTLARR Act,2013, Section 2 (1) (f)
51
LA Act, 1894, Section 3 (f) (v)
52
RFCTLARR Act,2013, Section 2 (1) (e)
53
LA Act, 1894, Section 3 (f) (i)
54
Ibid, sec 3 (f) (ii)

28
The provision of land for public private the provision of any premises or building for
partnership projects, where the ownership of locating a public office, but does not include
the land continues to vest with the acquisition of land for companies57
Government, for public purpose 55
The provision of land for private companies

for public purpose56
In the case of Radhey Shyam v the State of Uttar Pradesh 58: “The concept of public purpose
cannot remain static for all time to come. The concept, even though sought to be defined
under Section 3(f) of the Act, is not capable of any precise definition. The said definition, having
suffered several amendments, has assumed the character of an inclusive one. It must be accepted
that in construing public purpose, a broad and overall view has to be taken and the focus must be
on ensuring maximum benefit to the largest number of people. Any attempt by the State to
acquire land by promoting a public purpose to benefit a particular group of people or to serve
any particular interest at the cost of the interest of a large section of people especially of the
common people defeats the very concept of public purpose. Even though the concept of public
purpose was introduced by pre-Constitutional legislation, its application must be consistent with
the constitutional ethos and especially the chapter under Fundamental Rights and also the
Directive Principles. In construing the concept of public purpose, the mandate of Article 13 of
the Constitution that any pre-constitutional law cannot in any way take away or abridge rights
conferred under Part-III must be kept in mind. By judicial interpretation the contents of these
Part III rights are constantly expanded. The meaning of public purpose in acquisition of land
must be judged on the touchstone of this expanded view of Part-III rights. The open-ended nature
of our Constitution needs a harmonious reconciliation between various competing principles and
the overhanging shadows of socio-economic reality in this country”.
55
RFCTLARR Act,2013, Section 2 (2) (a)
56
Ibid., sec 2 (2) (b)
57
LA Act, 1894, Section 3 (f) (viii)
58
15 April, 2011, SLP No. 601 of 2009.

29
Justice Singhvi in the above case further remarked that- “in recent years, the country has
witnessed new phenomena. Large tracts of land have been acquired in rural parts of the country
in the name of development and transferred to private entrepreneurs, who have utilized the same
for construction of multi-storied complexes, commercial centers and for setting up industrial
units. If public purpose can be satisfied by not rendering common man homeless and by
exploring other avenues of acquisition, the Courts, before sanctioning an acquisition, must in
exercise of its power of judicial review, focus its attention on the concept of social and economic
justice. While examining these questions of public importance, the Courts especially the Higher
Courts, cannot afford to act as mere umpires.”
In case of M/S. Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd it was held that there can be no change in the public
purpose. Land acquired by the state for public purpose could not be transferred for the private
use by private entities because this amount to diversification of public purpose and the concept
of the public purpose cannot be expanded to legitimize fraudulent activity.59Judiciary plays a
wider role in examining very carefully what constitutes public purpose and once the acquisition
process is complete it also looks whether the public purpose is diverted for private use.
To check whether a particular acquisition falls under the definition of public purpose or not,
process safeguard is enshrined under the LARR act 2013. The first process check is the Social
impact assessment with the additional requirement of public hearing. SIA is appraised by the
Expert group, which includes independent actors to examine whether a particular project fulfills
the stated purpose. Then a committee of government explores whether the whether the benefits
of land acquisition overweight the losses. If land acquisition is the last resort and there is
legitimate public purpose then only bare minimum are to be acquired.
The spreme court in RL Arora case held that the “State is empowered to compulsorily acquire
land for companies which satisfy the description of being engaged in an industry which is
essential for the life of the community whether or not the purpose for which the company
proposes to use the land.”60 The use of the phrase like ‘public interest’, ‘accruing general
benefits to the public’, ‘Provision of public good and services’ in the LARR act points toward
the fact that the definition of public purpose moved beyond the holding of R.L Arora case. These
59
M/S. Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd & Anr vs. G. Jayarama Reddy & Ors, 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7588 of 2005
60
R. L. Arora vs. State of U.P and Others, 1964 AIR 1230, 1964 SCR (6) 784

30
interpretations despite various barriers like R&R and consent requirement will satisfy the private
industry.61Therefore it can be said that this act contributes towards widening the definition of
public purpose and it also provides some help to the judiciary in the interpretation of the public
purpose but the definition of public purpose still remains inclusive and not precise.
3.4 PUBLIC UTILITY VS. PUBLIC PURPOSE
Public utility means the work or project like telephone, railway, telegraph, etc., which is useful
and available to all the sections of the public irrespective of the creed, cast, colour or community
and not merely to a section of the community. But when the public purpose serves even a section
of the public it is public purpose as stated in the Bombay v .Ali gulshan62. If a project is carried
out say for Harijans, it is going to be not going to be available to all, but it is a public purpose.
Therefore every work of public utility will be for public purpose, but public purpose is not
covered by the public utility.63
According to the earlier view any purpose relating to functions of government would be a public
use provided public have the direct benefit from the property acquired thereof. According to the
newer view point there is a public use if the thing taken is useful to the public
.64 In case of acquisition of land for manufacture of salt has been held to be an acquisition for a
public purpose.65There is no public purpose where the land is acquired for an industrial concern
working purely for its own gain, even though the goods produced by the concern may be of use
to the general public66
In Kelo v. New London67, It was held that the public use requirement so long as the ultimate use
of the property serves some public purpose or provides a public benefit. The decision of this can
been criticized for widening the scope of takings clause under the First Amendment beyond the
natural meaning of public use. The result would be that even private homes may be condemned
61
Supra note 4
62
State of Bombay v. Ali gulshan, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 810
63
A. Gosh, “ Laws of compulsory land acquisition and compensation in India & The land acquisition act, 1894”, 7 th
edition P.107
64
Concept of public purpose: its importance and usefulness in the present scenario, (Feb. 13, 2018, 12:23),
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/48090/11/11_chapter%204.pdf.html.
65
Municipal Corporation v. Sind, AIR 1947 Sind 69.
66
SatrughnaSahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1958 Ori187.
67
545 U.S. 469 (2005)

31
by the government and turned over to private parties for development if such development
produces tax revenue. Kelo case reveals a subtle but vital difference between the invocations of
public use as opposed to a public benefit test, with the phrase public purpose somewhere in the
middle. Public use is interpreted broadly by most courts therefore taking must only have public
purpose or public benefit.
3.5 PUBLIC PURPOSE: JUSTIFIABILITY
Where the land acquisition proceeding are challenged by a writ under Article 266 of the
constitution of India, The only question for consideration is whether it is required for public
purpose.
If the essential element that is the public purpose in the declaration is unreal then in such a case
Article 266 can be invoked.68 Justifiability of public purpose is questioned only when:-
Mala fides is suggested to the government that is acting in fraud of its power, the acquisition
being colorable, that it was a mere cloak to acquire under the guise of public purpose.
That the purpose stated in the declaration is not in the eye of law a public purpose. To establish
the above the claimant has to resort to suit and in an appropriate case, a writ may be available.69
In the State of Bihar vs. kameshwar, it was posited that it would be unconstitutional if the
impugned law sought to make the executive determination of the existence of a public purpose
‘final’ and non-justiciable. But the court should respect the legislative declaration of a public
purpose. The scheme should be examined as a whole instead of picking one particular item to
denote that they are not supported by any public purpose.
The Acquisition of the land will be invalid and ultra vires if the government while exercising its
power does not comply with the mandatory provisions of the L.A Act. The conclusiveness of
declaration is based upon complying with the mandatory provisions of this Act otherwise the
declaration is without justification. It is not within the province of the court to hold that the
68
Rajendra Kumar v. Government of West Bengal, AIR 1952
69
V.G. Ramachandra, The Land acquisition and compensation, 3 rd edition, Eastern Book Company, P 343,

32
declaration is bad unless, the land acquisition proceedings are mala fide and made under the
guise of public purpose70
3.5.1 JUSTICIABILITY AND HOW IT IS CHALLENGED
The justifiability as to public purpose may be challenged by a writ petition on the following
grounds:-
• There is colourable exercise of power by the government

• That it is intended to benefit particular firm, company or individual.
• That the purpose disclosed in the notification is not really public purpose and the
acquisition is mala fide.71
3.5.2 JUSTICIABILITY, HOW IT IS DEFENDED
In notification it is not essential to disclose all details of the purpose, but when it is challenged all
the details should be disclosed by the affidavit. The statements made in the affidavit must be in
detail and specific supported by proper evidence. If the acquisition is for public purpose then the
source of the cost of acquisition must be clearly stated and if the acquisition is for the company
then it must be shown that objectives as describe under section 40 and the provisions of part VII
are duly complied with. The particulars asked for by the petitioner, have been duly supplied.72
3.6 APPROACHES TOWARDS LAND ACQUISITION

Three approaches towards land acquisition are:
(i) Communitarian approach - according to this approach it is essential to get the consent of gram
sabha and in absence of which the land acquisition should not take place.
(ii) Market base approach – according to this approach there is a direct deal between those who
wants land and land owners. This approach hides behind it violation of people rights because
price is the only thing that a person receives, which is itself not regulated. This price may be
based on compulsion or force.
70
Luchmeswar singh v. Chairman, Darbhanya municipality, AIR 1926, M.1099
71
A Gosh, “Law of compulsory acquisition and compensation in India and the land acquisition act 1894”. 7 th
edition, P 127
72
A. Gosh, Law of compulsory acquisition and compensation in India and the land acquisition act 1894, 7 th edition,
p.128

33
(iii) State led approach – according to this approach state plays important role of regulator, can
acquire land forcibly when public good is served but it provides and protects the rights of
affected persons in a very democratic way by providing compensation, rehabilitation,
resettlement.
Government should not act as real estate agent for private sector to gain private profits. Public
purpose should be defined in a very strict way and purpose for which the land is to be acquired
have to be clearly stated.73
Intervention of the state is very important because the balance of power is pitted so much against
the affected person, therefore role of government is most important when the land is acquired
either through land acquisition act or direct market purchases. There is a huge number of land
purchasers who after purchasing the land get the land use change done. Transfer of Mr. Ashok
Khemka is one such example of land use change where land was purchased from the framers
who were unaware of the land-use foe which their land was acquired and the land which was
worth a couple of lakhs became worth crores overnight simply because of land-use change,
therefore farmer should not be denied a share in the increased land value because of the land use
change simply because affected person was unaware of the fact that land-use is going to be
change, therefore the government has to play a very important role of regulator and not just act
as forcible acquirer in the land acquisition process for private sector so that affected people get
their rights protected.74
3.7 PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS (PAP)

The people who will face the impact of land acquisition is defined under ‘affected families’.
According to section 3(c) ― “affected family includes— (i) a family whose land or other
immovable property has been acquired; (ii) a family which does not own any land but a member
or members of such family may be agricultural labourers, tenants including any form of tenancy
or holding of usufruct right, share-croppers or artisans or who may be working in the affected
area for three years prior to the acquisition of the land, whose primary source of livelihood stand
affected by the acquisition of land; (iii) the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
73
Dr. smita gupta, Land Acquisition Imperatives – public purpose and consent, (Mar. 12, 2018, 15:14),
https://www.newsclick.in/india/land-acquisition-imperatives-public-purpose-and-consent
74
Dr. Smita Gupta, Land Acquisition Act: A Neo-Liberal version of its Colonial Counter part , (Mar. 14, 2018, 16:34),
https://newsclick.in/india/land-acquisition-act-neo-liberal-version-its-colonial-counterpart

34
who have lost any of their forest rights recognised under the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) due to
acquisition of land; (iv) family whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the
acquisition of the land is dependent on forests or water bodies and includes gatherers of forest
produce, hunters, fisher folk and boatmen and such livelihood is affected due to acquisition of
land; (v) a member of the family who has been assigned land by the State Government or the
Central Government under any of its schemes and such land is under acquisition; (vi) a family
residing on any land in the urban areas for preceding three years or more prior to the acquisition
of the land or whose primary source of livelihood for three years prior to the acquisition of the
land is affected by the acquisition of such land.”75 There are number of loopholes in the
definition of PAPs. However,” a legal loophole still persists. PAPs are not defined, even as a
number of related definitions abound: ‘affected family, ‘persons interested’, ‘land owners’,
‘marginal farmers’, ‘landless’ and ‘displaced family’. 20 Are PAPs to be understood as each one
of these categories-or-are PAPs a sum of all of them? This question is important in matters
pertaining to implementation of the 80% consent requirement. When 80% consent is required
from PAPs, who will be the ones whose consent is asked for?”76
3.8 PUBLIC PURPOSE IN GENERAL
The following acquisitions comes with the purview of public purpose with the objective of
provide public services:
• For providing suitable accommodation to the public servant.77

• For providing road facilities in municipal areas.78
• Providing housing accommodation for homeless.79
• Establishment of slaughter house for maintaining supplies of food in locality80
75
RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Section 3 (c)
76
http://iihs.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Land_Acquisition_Law_and_Politics_Amlanjyoti_Goswami.pdf
77
University of Bombay v. municipal commr. of the city of Bombay, I.L.R.16 Bom. 217.
78
Radha Binode v. Surendra Nath, 105 I.C. 377.
79
State of Bombay v. R.S. Nanji, A.I.R 1956, S.C. 294
80
Iftikher Ahmed v. state of M.P, A.I.R. 1961 M.P 140

35
• For resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced person.81

• Opening of a burial ground.82
• Removal of timber shops from the scattered places in the city area to a place outside the
city area for the establishment of timber market comes under public purpose. An
acquisition is for public purpose when it involves an element of public utility, provides
public good and aims for social welfare. Acquisition need not be an acquisition which
benefits each and every member of the public.83
3.9 SUMMING UP
The interest of the community is concerned as opposed to the interest of particular individual
under the concept of public purpose. With the passage of time the scope of public purpose has
expanded, therefore anything which is useful to the public or which confers any benefit even on
a fraction of community can be termed as public purpose. It is impossible to provide exact and
exclusive definition of public purpose. The courts also have not provided any precise definition
for the term public purpose and different purposes were held to be public purpose by the court
from time to time. In the definition of the public purpose where consent is not required there the
government can acquire acres of land and hand it over to the companies. There is no clear
definition of public purpose because it uses the term ‘includes’ and the movement word include
is used it points out that it is just an illustrative list so when there is illustrative list it is not
restrictive and it doesn’t even follow any principle. The courts in the last few decades have ruled
that the government has absolute authority to decide what public purpose is and this has been
derived from the 1894 act which has not changed even today
4. JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE ON LAND ACQUISTION
INTRODUCTION
The concept of public purpose has been decided in a number of cases and how has the idea of
‘Public Purpose’ been developed by the Judiciary?
The courts in India depends mainly on the material provided by the authorities and rejecting the
liberal interpretation of Article 21 of the constitution of India and plight of displaced persons and
81
Ganga Prasad Verma v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1968 M.P. 22.
82
Walliammal v. state of Madras and Others, 1967 Mad 334: (1965) 2 Mad. 388: (1966) 79 Mad. LW 702.
83
Guru Shiddawwavitra Sangayya v. state of Mysore, 1968 Mys 127, p.13

36
protests are not taken into account by the court while taking decision as in Posco steel plant and
Narmada Bachao Andolan case.84 The judiciary has provided certain guidelines relating to the
meaning of the public purpose but no precise definition of the term public purpose laid down in
any case.
NAND KISHORE GUPTA & ORS VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS (YAMUNA
EXPRESSWAY CASE) 85
Fact: In 2009, the Uttar Pradesh government for the construction of the Yamuna Expressway and
five regions along the expressway acquired the large area of land and then sold it to Jaypee
associate group for the execution of the project.
The key contention is that the acquisition itself cannot be said to be for the public purpose:
It was pointed out that the purpose for which land acquisition took place was not a public
purpose as per Section 3 (f) of the Land Acquisition Act. It cannot be said that this acquisition
would come under Part II of the Land Acquisition Act and in fact, it must be considered to be
under Part VII of the Act since it virtually amounts to the acquisition of land for J.P. Infra tech-a
private company.
The compensation for the land acquisition is coming entirely from the company and not from
the Government, therefore, it is not an acquisition for public purpose but for the company
The acquisition for so-called interchange is not at all necessary and it is actually a colourable
exercise of powers.
The main reason to reject the contention that the entire scheme was a result of colorable
legislation was that the present company was not in existence in 2001, when the project was
conceived. Therefore assuming that project was envisaged keeping the company in mind is
entirely wrong and the project was implemented on the basis of build, operate and transfer
(BOT) and right were granted to the builder for the collection of toll for a period of 36 years
from the date of commercial operation commencement. Therefore after the end of operation
84
Sreya B, “Judicial Interpretation of Public Purpose with Respect to Land Rights” Available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290863
85
Civil appeal no. 7468 of 2010

37
period state becomes the owner of the project assets and there was no vesting of land as in the
case when the acquisition was being effected under part VII of L.A Act.
The construction of Expressway is a work of public importance which is not only advantageous
for the state but the general public in the form of fast-moving traffic, lesser traveling time and
transportation of goods also get benefited from the project and these factors are enough to make
the project ‘public purpose' project. The creation of five zones for residence, amusement,
industry etc. would act as complementary to the creation of expressway and this would further
lead towards the creation of jobs and help the economy and ultimately help the general public.
Part VII of the L.A Act envisages that if the whole assets belong to the company then it is
presumed that the compensation is coming from the company, but in the present case company
gets no ownership right over the property and had to revert back the assets after a fixed period of
36 years to the government. Therefore it can be said that the Government was only using the
Company for implementing its policy.
ANALYSIS
Today, the availability of funds with the state government for investment in large projects is very
limited therefore if projects are implemented by the private companies that can be used by the
general public without any kind of discrimination then the distinction between private and public
breaks. Land in case of Yamuna expressway was acquired in excess of what was required and
development of golf course, formula one racing track and such other projects with limited
potential for job creation is gross misuse of land which belonged to farmers but when we look at
whole picture in this case the entire land acquisition process was in line with the provisions of
L.A Act and there was no colorable exercise of power and construction of Yamuna Expressway
project was a ‘public purpose’.
SOORARAM PRATAP REDDY & ORS VS. DISTT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY86
Fact: It was the case of the appellants before the High Court that the Government of Andhra
Pradesh sought to acquire a large chunk of land in the name of `public purpose' for the purported
development of `Financial District and Allied Projects'. According to the appellants, the action
86 Civil appeal no. 5509 of 2008

38
has been taken in colourable exercise of power and in total violation of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 as well as several other statutes in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh
The Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition for an integrated project to develop a business-
cum-leisure tourism infrastructure in line with policy to develop Hyderabad as a major business
destination. A holistic approach was adopted in this case for the interpretation of public purpose.
The court, in this case, interpreted public purpose to include any public benefit and held that if
this project is seen as whole and from wider perspective, it is an attempt to bring foreign
exchange in the country, generating employment opportunities and development of the region,
therefore, it can be held that it will fall within the ambit of public purpose.87
The state primarily decides whether public purpose exist or not, but this decision of the state is
not beyond the scrutiny of the judiciary. The court can interfere where the state exercises its
power in a mala fide way or for collateral purpose or the so-called public purpose does not
resemble public purpose from any angle and fraud on the statute is apparent. But it was held in
this case that a writ court while exercising its power under Article 32, 136, 226 of the
constitution of India, cannot substitute the judgment of the government for its own judgment on
the question regarding what constitutes a public purpose.
“Public purpose is not a constant. The scope of an expression which conjugates general interest
of the public must necessarily depend inter alia on social and economic needs and broad
interpretation of the democratic ideal. It must alter as social and economic conditions alter”.88
The judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions leads to the blurring of the distinction
between acquisition for a public purpose and part VII acquisition. The main distinction between
above two acquisition can be inferred from the fact whether the cost of the acquisition comes
from public fund partly or wholly. Therefore even contribution of a trifling amount by the
government is sufficient to change the character of acquisition. Therefore even if the government
comes forward to sanction the payment of nominal amount towards the compensation for the
acquisition of land, then in that case setting up of industry in private sector could get the
character of public purpose acquisition.
87
M.S. Anusha Reddy and H. Murali Krishnan, “ UNDERSTANDING THE JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC
PURPOSE UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION LAWS IN INDIA: A CASE OF ROBBING THE POOR TO FEED THE RICH”
Available at: http://www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/downloads/lawreview/law_review_vol21.pdf
88
Para 126, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313008/

39
“Public purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the community or
locality and, therefore, the legislature has left it to the State (Government) to decide what a
public purpose is and also to declare the need of a given land for the purpose. The legislature has
left the discretion to the Government regarding public purpose. The Government has the sole and
absolute discretion in the matter”.89
ANALYSIS
The court provides a wider interpretation to the term “public purpose”, and holds that it is wider
than “public necessity”, and included acquisition of land by the state for use by private entities.
Hence the acquisition in this present case by the state government was held to be for a “public
purpose”. The power of eminent domain can be exercised if the development of infrastructure is
legal and the project can be constituted as 'public purpose' project. The door for future litigants
remains open for inviting the court to review the question on the grounds mentioned in this case.
KEDAR NATH YADAV vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. (SINGUR LAND
ACQUISITION CASE)90
In 2016, The supreme court of India Set aside previous judgment of Calcutta high court, which
upheld the acquisition of 997 acres of land in Singur and declared that initial land acquisition
was void and illegal because in 2006 government of West Bengal committed fraud by acquiring
land for the benefit of a private company and passing it off as public good and it failed to meet
requirements of land acquisition act 1894.
The relevant facts of this case are: In 2006, Industrial policy was formulated to set up automobile
industries by the state of West Bengal to curb the problem of employment and to serve the needs
of the public for which 997 acres of land was acquired and allotted to Tata Motors in 2006 to set
up Nano car manufacturing plant. Tata Motors Ltd. For the infrastructural requirement for the
project entered into discussion with the state of the west of West Bengal.
Singur chronology
89
Para 164, Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1313008/ Dated 13/03/2018
90 Civil appeal no.8438 of 2016

40
May 2006: Ratan Tata, then chairman of Tata groups announces Nano car plant at Singur in
West Bengal.
January 18, 2008: Calcutta High Court upholds Singur land acquisition and rules in the favor of
the state of government, following which farmers and NGO moved the Supreme Court
challenging the High Court order.
October 7, 2008: Tata Motors announces the suspension of work at Singur and relocated the new
Nano Plant at Sanand in Gujarat due to frequent mob attacks, farmer opposing land acquisition
committing suicide, hunger strikes etc.
June 14, 2011: Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Bill, 2011 passed in West Bengal
Assembly to take the land back from Tata Motors.
June 22, 2012: A division bench of Calcutta High Court declared Singur land rehabilitation and
development, Act 2011 as unconstitutional on an appeal by Tata Motors.
August 6, 2012: The West Bengal government moves the Supreme Court, challenging division
bench verdict.
August 31, 2016: Supreme Court sets aside January 18, 2008 order of Calcutta High Court,
quashing the 2006 land acquisition, and land to be returned within 12 weeks.91
The issues that were framed by the court that is relevant for research work are:
1. Whether the lands involved in these proceedings have been acquired for a public purpose or
for the Company (TML)?
2. If the lands have been acquired for a Company, whether the procedure provided for under
Part VII of the L.A. Act has been complied with by the state government? 92
Both the issues are interlinked and answered together by the court.
The definition of public purpose under section 3(f) of the L.A Act, 1984 is inclusive and clearly
indicates that land acquisition for companies is excluded from the definition of public purpose.
91
Shreeja Sen, “Singur case: Supreme Court declares land acquisition for Tata plant illegal”, Available at:
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/Yrl5OkSielFvHttnG4AajM/CPM-govts-acquisition-of-land-for-Tata-Motors-in-
Singur-ill.html Dated 11/02/2018 14:23
92
Para 50, P.72, Available at: http://www.hrln.org/hrln/images/stories/pdf/singur-case.pdf Dated 12/03/2018 19:09

41
Part VII of the Act deals with the acquisition of land for companies. Therefore examination of
whether the lands in question was acquired for a company or for a public purpose is crucial in the
instant case. In the case of Devender Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab93 , it was held that when the
acquisition of land is for a public purpose, it is Part II of the L.A. Act which would apply and
where the acquisition of land is at the instance of a Company, the procedure to be adopted is laid
down in Part VII of the L.A. Act.
Land acquisition proceedings will be void ab initio in law if the state government fails to fulfill
its duty of ensuring that mandatory procedure and rules framed under the L.A Act are
scrupulously followed. In a democratic country governed by rule of law, compliance with
procedure and rules of the L.A Act cannot be treated as a mere formality by the government, as
that would amount to handing over and abuse of eminent domain power of the state to the
executive.
In the instant case, the proper procedure laid down under part VII was not followed by the
government, therefore what makes the whole land acquisition proceeding illegal and void ab
initio in law is not the fact that land required for automobile industry would generate
employment and provide socio-economic benefit but the fact that acquisition of land for the
company was sought to be disguised as acquisition for public purpose in order to find a way
around for not complying with the mandatory provisions of part VII of the L.A Act. Part VII of
the act will be held as redundant if the acquisition of land for a company could be held as public
purpose just for the simple reason that it would generate employment and will ultimately lead to
Socio-economic development. This clearly could not be the intention of the legislature for
providing part VII read with article 3(f) of the Act. In the instant case acquisition of land could
not be held to be one for ‘public purpose' because it can be held on the basis of the material on
record from original files, letters addressed to the government by Tata Motors Ltd. and
identification of exact location and site by TML that the lands were acquired by the state
government for a particular company.
Analysis of the case: Public purpose does not include providing employment because it would
lead to the attempt of justifying each and every acquisition of land of the weaker section of
society in the name of public purpose. Today L.A Act 1894 stand repealed by the LARR Act
93
(2008) 1 SCC 728

42
2013, but court ruling is significant with regards to what constitutes a "public purpose" for
permitting the land acquisition. Therefore the interference by the court limits the government
power of land acquisition.
DAULAT SINGH SURANA AND ORS. VS. FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
AND ORS94
In the instant case, the public purpose for which the premises was required was not questioned
seriously. As a matter of fact, the State of West Bengal has been using the premises in question
for more than six decades for the safety and security of the people by having an office of the
Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control). Hence, by no stretch of the imagination, it
can be said that the premises were not required by the State Government for the interest and
welfare of the people or there was no public purpose involved in acquiring the premises in
question
In a case where land acquisition is for the public purpose, the scope and ambit of term ‘public
purpose' should not be limited and precisely defined. Public purpose is not static in nature it
changes with the passage of time, requirement and need of the community. Public purpose can
be termed as general interest of the community opposed to individual interest.
The 'eminent domain' concept is an essential attribute of every State. This is based on the
fundamental principle that the interest and claim of an individual are always inferior to the
interest of the whole community. The power of 'eminent domain' can be exercised only for the
welfare and interest of general public. The matters such as safety, security, health, welfare, and
prosperity of the community or public at large should be included in the concept of public
purpose.95
“Public purpose is bound to vary with times and prevailing conditions in the community or
locality and, therefore, the legislature has left it to the State (Government) to decide what a
public purpose is and also to declare the need of a given land for the purpose. The legislature has
94
Daulat Singh Surana v First Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 2007 SC 47
95
http://www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalized.aspx

43
left the discretion to the Government regarding public purpose. The Government has the sole and
absolute discretion in the matter”.96
ANALYSIS: Section 3(f) of the L.A Act, defines “public purpose” using an inclusive and non-
exhaustive list. As there is no fixed or precise statutory definition for the public purpose, the
government had the sole and absolute power and discretion for deciding what constitutes a public
purpose. the power given to the judiciary is very limited for interference in the decision of the
state government.
THE VEIL OF PUBLIC PURPOSE
State Of Karnataka and Anr Etc. vs. Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. Etc. 97
How to pierce the veil of public purpose can be taken from the Long quote from the justice Iyer’s
judgment.
“There may be many processes of satisfying a public purpose. Wide range of choices may exist.
The State may walk into the open market and buy the items, movable and immovable, to fulfil
the public purpose; or it may compulsorily acquire from some private person's possession and
ownership the articles needed to meet the public purpose; it may requisition, instead of resorting
to the acquisition; it may take, on loan or on hire or itself manufacture or produce. All these steps
are various alternative means to meet the public purpose. The State may need chalk or cheese,
pins, pens or planes, boats, buses or buildings, carts, cars, or eating houses or any other of the
innumerable items to run a welfare-oriented administration or a public corporation or answer a
community requirement. If the purpose is for servicing the public, as governmental purposes
ordinarily are, then everything desiderated for sub serving such public purpose falls under the
broad and expanding rubric. The nexus between the taking of property and the public purpose
springs necessarily into existence if the former is capable of answering the latter. On the other
hand, if the purpose is a private or non-public one, the mere fact that the hand that acquires or
requires is Government or a public corporation, does not make the purpose automatically a
public purpose. Let us illustrate. If a fleet of cars is desired for conveyance of public officers, the
purpose is a public one. If the same fleet of cars is sought for fulfilling the tourist. Appetite of
96
Para 25, Available at: http://www.manupatrafast.in/pers/Personalized.aspx
97
1978 AIR 215, 1978 SCR (1) 641

44
friends and relations of the same public officers, it is a private purpose. If bread is 'seized' for
feeding a starving section of the community, it is a public purpose that is met but, if the same
bread is desired for the private dinner of a political maharajah who may pro tem fill a public
office, it is a private purpose. Of course, the thing taken must be capable of 'serving the object of
the taking. If you want to run bus transport you cannot take buffaloes".
SUMMING UP:
The numerous cases that have been analyzed in this research paper, it is clearly said that the
Indian courts have traditionally allowed the government to give the phrase "public purpose" as
wide an interpretation as possible, sometimes including strictly private and profit-making
activities within the ambit of the same. Moreover, there has never been a conscious attempt on
the part of the courts to limit the sphere of what constitutes public purpose and more often than
not, any form of industrialization, irrespective of the cost has been seen to be for public good.98
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The present 2013 Act is more liberal which is heavily stepped in favor of industries,
infrastructure development and urbanization because of which people’s right have been
undermined in the name of giving them rights. When we look at the eminent domain and its
historic evolution in India which came from the land reforms legislation we find that after
independence it was used to discipline zamindars, redistribute land and to protect the rights of
tillers. Today it is used to expropriate and dispossess the land owners for industries and large
profits , therefore the question is not whether the eminent domain should be use or not but
whether it should be used in the interest of the affected person or for the generation of
megabucks.99
The concept of eminent domain provides the power to the state government to acquire the land
without the consent of the owner for carrying out a public purpose and paying compensation in
lieu of land acquisition. It is well established that state should be subjected to the due process of
98
M.S. Anusha Reddy & H. Murali Krishnan , “Understanding the judicial interpretation of public purpose under the
land acquisition laws in India: a case of robbing the poor to feed the rich”. Available at:
http://www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/downloads/lawreview/law_review_vol21.pdf
99
Dr. smita Gupta, Supra note 74.

45
law while acquiring the private property. The concept of public purpose and compensation are
not clearly defined and ambiguous which are essential for the exercising the power of eminent
domain and because of this uncertainty government acquires private property at its own
disposition. The L.A Act empowers the Government to acquire land for public purpose, but the
definition of ‘public purpose’ is inclusive and not precisely defined in the Act or the constitution
of India, which makes it possible for the government to stretch the public purpose definition to
its limit and even including acquisition of land for non-profit making private companies. Based
on the analysis of the present research work it can be held that the judiciary play's important role
in defining the public purpose and keeping a regular check on the misuse of power vested with
the state government to acquire land for the public purpose. Deprivation of property must take
place for public purpose or public interest. The concept of eminent domain which applies when a
person is deprived of his property postulates that the purpose must be primarily public and not
primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public. Any law, which
deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be unlawful and unfair and
undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review. But the question as to
whether the purpose is primarily public or private, has to be decided by the legislature, which of
course should be made known. The concept of public purpose has been given fairly expansive
meaning which has to be justified upon the purpose and object of statute and the policy of the
legislation.100
Land acquisition litigation is at the highest level in peri-urban sector whereas the number of
litigation in rural areas is very low and mostly limited to things like new railway tracks, road or
industrial plant so major issue is in peri-urban areas. Land acquired for expansion of industrial
part on the face of it seems to be acquired for public purpose but once the acquisition process is
complete and settlement is made regarding the amount of compensation it is mostly announced
it is going to be sold to the private parties, so the government is actually paying you the money
which is a smaller amount in comparison to the private parties will pay and in the long run the
private parties will earn a lot from the same piece of land than what was paid to you. The state is
earning revenue and private parties earning money but the farmer whose original land was there
is not earning anything. The landowner may get a good compensation from his point of view
today but once the private developer comes in and develops the land the value of the land will be
100
K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2011

46
much higher than years from now, therefore, grievance of not getting a fair market return from
the ancestral land that is being taken away will be there.
As per the CAG, report work has begun only in 28,488.49 hectares out of 45,635.63 hectares of
SEZ land allotted till 2014. Land acquired for SEZ through the invocation of public purpose later
sold off to industries such as reliance industries, Essar steel etc. Land acquired for Yamuna
expressway has been used for formula one racing track, golf courses and such other projects with
the limited potential for job development. In POSCO case land was acquired with statistics that it
will create jobs around 8 lakhs and will reduce poverty and unemployment but as per the report
of the National Council of applied economic research, job creation was below 50,000. Therefore
it can be held that Government working for the interest of the corporate world.101
In 2011 it was held in Ramji veerji Patel & ors it was held by the S.C of India that: “...To say the
least, the Act has become outdated and needs to be replaced at the earliest by the fair, reasonable
and rational enactment in tune with the constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 300A of
the Constitution. We expect the law making the process for a comprehensive enactment with
regard to acquisition of land being completed without any unnecessary delay”.102
The right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and
resettlement (amendment) bill, 2015 tried to address the industrial concern by doing away with
the provisions like social impact assessment and contest requirement. As per section 10A of this
act “The appropriate Government may, in the public interest, by notification, exempt any of the
following projects from the application of the provisions of Chapter II and Chapter III of this
Act, namely:—(a) such projects vital to national security or defense of India and every part
thereof, including preparation for defense or defense production;(b) rural infrastructure including
electrification;(c) affordable housing and housing for the poor people;(d) industrial corridors;
and (e) infrastructure and social infrastructure projects including projects under public-private
partnership where the ownership of land continues to vest with the Government”. These
categories can cover different types of projects and have a wider scope. This act replaced the
word private company to the private entity and thus opened the opportunity of land acquisition
101
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Land-acquired-for-SEZs-sold-off-put-to-other-uses-
CAG/articleshow/45355150.cms
102
Ramji Veerji Patel & Ors vs. Revenue Divisional Officer & Ors on 2 November, 2011

47
for other entities like partnership firms, trusts, societies etc.103 The 2015 act amendments will
make the situation same when 1948 Act was in force. All struggles, deliberations and lives lost in
police action in different parts of the country will be futile that were made to do away with 1948
land acquisition act. The inclusion of land up to one kilometer for industrial corridor will lead to
the acquisition of land what is actually required for the project that is acquisition beyond the bare
minimum. This act removed the restriction on the acquisition of multi-cropped land which can
jeopardize the food security. The rehabilitation and resettlement award for each affected family
includes employment for at least one member of the family ‘affected family of a farm laborer
which is likely to uproot a person from his main source of livelihood and it does not take into
account other dependents of the family on land.104
SUGGESTIONS
• IN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LAND POLLING SCORE

ABOVE LAND ACQUISITION
The concept of land polling involves landowners giving away ownership rights to the
government body or a single agency. This also prevents the selling of land without the consent of
the owner. Under this policy, land holdings are surrendered into the central pool by the
landowner and he ultimately becomes the stakeholder in proportion to his or her land to the
development proposed on their land.105 Land pooling is beneficial for both the original
landowner and the developing agency. Like in many acquisitions the original landowner who
does not lose all his land, because of which the resistance to this mechanism is lower. The value
of the land increases way beyond that of his original holding and he also gets access to better
infrastructure.106
103
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/386234/agriculture+land+law/Indias+Controversial+Land+Acquisiti
on+Laws
104
http://beta.bodhicommons.org/article/unite-against-land-acquisition-bill-2015-fight-corporate-land-grab-and-
protect-land-rights
105
http://www.delhiaawasyojna.com/land-pooling-policy/
106
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/how-land-pooling-scores-over-land-acquisition-in-
infrastructure-development-116081200857_1.html

48
Mgarpatta City (Pune)-4000 Crore township that farmer built
120 farmer families joined hands with the maragarpatta township development and construction
company to develop the township in 430 acres of land and converting their land into a finished
value-added product of immense value to them.107 The farmers became the shareholder in the
company in proportion to the value of his or her land in total by pooling their land. This model
was based on the revenue sharing basis, therefore, every landowner was entitled to get a
percentage of sale-proceeds in proportion to their land-holdings at the time when the sales
accrue. The company was termed as the farmers company108 and this concept won accolades
award in the 2008 Sydney World Congress of Metropolis.109
• Successful case: TNUDP Phase III Project in Tamil Nadu:
The Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project (TNUDP) consisted of a combination of five roads
in Tamil Nadu. The project was funded by the World Bank. Private land of 40.12 hectares
needed to be acquired for this project, affecting 2,073 people. A negotiations committee was then
formed that was constituted by the project implementation unit engineer, the special deputy
collector, local representatives and deputy engineer-highways of sub-projects. Affected
stakeholders with and without legal titles were identified. The affected parties were offered
compensation of between 142% and 150% of the prevailing guideline value of their land. In
addition, a building allowance equivalent to 25% of the total compensation, a subsistence
allowance at the rate of Rs1,800 per month for six months, a shifting allowance of Rs1,000 as
well as a replacement for lost assets were provided. In cases where payments were delayed,
affected parties were paid interest at the rate of 12% on the compensation due to them. In the end
analysis, there were no court cases against the compensation offered. The constitution of an
independent committee, negotiating with stakeholders and providing compensation for indirect
losses as well as delayed payments are creditable interventions. There was a protest against the
award since the process of the award was open and transparent, and due to the apprehension that
compensation awarded through the Land Acquisition Act would be lower and would take longer
107
https://iimb.ac.in/research/sites/default/files/WP%20No.%20384.pdf
108
http://www.iicdelhi.nic.in/ContentAttachments/Publications/DiaryFiles/163615September192011_IIC%20Occas
ional%20Publication%2031.pdf
109
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/magarpatta-building-a-city-with-ruralurban-partnership/

49
to arrive.110 In India the scope of meaningful negotiation is limited. There is a need for the
formation of independent negotiation committee to curb the problem of corruption and delayed
process in cases of land acquisition. In Japan, land acquisition for public projects is not done by
the procedure under the Land Expropriation Law but by mutual negotiation among the project
initiator, the landowner, and interested parties. The negotiation technique with the stakeholders
lead to economically and socially optimal solution.111
• The law should provide for the detailed process for the examination of public purpose.
Independent expert committee should be formed which should not only consist of retired
judges and experts from different fields but it should also include such members who
know the hardship faced by the persons displaced due to the acquisition. Therefore
government acting as the sole judge to decide what constitutes public purpose should
work in consonance with the expert committee.
• In Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors justice P.
Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan held that “Once the land is acquired, it vests in the State
free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the landowner how his land is used
and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any
other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a
right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right
of the restoration of land on any ground, whatsoever”112 therefore the government should
stick to the rule of acquiring the only bare minimum of land required for the project. The
number of cases reveals that government under the garb of public purpose acquire more
than needed which is misused subsequently.
• Public purpose should be limited to state sponsored projects. The provisions relating to
acquisition of land for private companies and PPPs should be deleted.
• In the definition of effected person whole list of occupiers is included but the definition is
diluted by adding overriding clauses like three year residence because of which the
problem of how to prove the residence arises therefore it’s only the owner with legal
titles are going to get their rights.
110
http://environmentportal.in/files/file/land%20acq_0.pdf
111
https://www.hosyoukikou.jp/zisyukenkyu/CONTENTS/CompensationSystemOfJapan.pdf
112
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors on 3 August, 2010

50
• Gram sabha plays a vital role in the process of land acquisition but it cannot be the final
authority because there is high chances of gram sabha being controlled by elites and these
elites are least concerned whether public good being served or not.
• There is a need to explore various types of land acquisition models that have emerged,
namely, land leasing, tripartite land acquisition model, land purchase etc. Social,
environmental and economic assessment makes the land acquisition more democratic and
transparent process
• Social Impact assessment- there is whole chapter dealing with the committee constitution,
tasks of the committee, report of the committee and then there is little clause added
according to which government need not accept the report or recommendation of the SIA
committee provided it gives its reason for not accepting in writing therefore it can be said
that social impact is not binding
• Land Acquisition process should be democratized. It should be done only for the well-
established public purpose and displacement should be minimized and it should not be
done at the cost of quality of life and livelihoods of the affected persons.
• Land use planning is also a fundamental issue which needs to be considered. State has to
first plan land use and then proceed with the land acquisition process. Adarsh Housing
Society scam is one of such example where land was given for private speculation which
was with army. So all this need to be regulated.
• The current bill is very weak bill which is full of loopholes and makes the land
acquisition process very simple for private sector as long as there is production of goods
which is used by the public. Whatever is produced can be for the public like shoe
production, car production etc. There is a provision for consent which is rarely used and
it looks like a sham because there is no clarification regarding from whom to get consent,
how to get consent, when to get it and what will happen if there is consent. Therefore this
needs to be clarified.
• This current bill is poorly drafted but providing Rehabilitation and resettlement as a legal
right is the strongest point of the bill but this can be changed by the government at any
point of time therefore it’s like giving from one hand and taking it away from the other
hand therefore this legal right should be protected from all the exemptions.

51
• Urgency Clause- the delays and procedures can be avoided through the route of
convenient clause of urgency. This clause is often misused by the government because
protest which farmer can make is not allowed under clause 5B. Amendments should have
been more pro framer, equitable and land acquisition should take place only when well
established public purpose is being served
• There are two parts of public purpose, when the government acquires land for its own use
then there is no consent requirement and there is no bar on transferring the land through
SEZs or in corridors to private companies through lease. Therefore Government declare
an area into a corridor or a SEZ and acquires it without consent and then it gives it out on
lease to the corporate sector

Land Law Public Purpose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Land Law Public Purpose

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Law Public Purpose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

LAND ACQUISITION FOR 'PUBLIC PURPOSE' – A CRITICAL

KEYWORDS: Land Acquisition, Public purpose, Eminent Domain, Land bill

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

1.2 WHAT IS LAND ACQUISITION

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

1.3 EMINENT DOMAIN

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

1.4 PUBLIC PURPOSE

1.5 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

1.7 RESEARCH METHOD

1.8 LITERATURE REVIEW

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

The framework of the present study is divided into five chapters

Chapter II: Land acquisition act: past, present and future

Chapter III: Public Purpose: Indian Concept

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Chapter IV: Judicial perception on land Acquisition

Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestions

2 LAND ACQUISTION ACT: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

2.2 EMINENT DOMAIN

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

2.3 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN

In clear terms, eminent domain is embodied in the constitution of India.8The Constitution of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

2.4 MISSUSE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

2.4.1 RESTRICTION ON THE POWER

• The property acquired must be taken for a “public use;”

2.5 RECONCILING THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ACT:

2.5.2 RFCTLARR ACT, 2013

2011(12) SCC 375

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

The main objectives of the act are:

The main criticism of the above law is as follows:

2.5.3 LAND BILL 2015

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

Social Impact Assessment

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

2.7 LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS

EXHIBIT 1: Land Acquisition Process (LLA, 1894 act)

Preliminary Notification under Sec

Intended acquisition Enquiry into objection Survey for measurement

Intended acquisition final The final declaration to be issued

Notification of award Award to be passed within the two

Taking possession of land

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3865350

EXHIBIT: 2 Land Acquisition process (LARR, 2013)

Appropriate Government receives the