http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SUBHASHGIR KHUSHALGIR GOSAVI& ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER& ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       18/03/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (4)   154        1996 SCALE  (3)339

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. Heard both the parties.      This appeal by special leave arises from the order made on November 7, 1994 in W.P. No. 4190 of 1994 by the Division Bench of  the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine.  It related  to the challenge to the notification issued under Section 4 [1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short,  the ’Act’]  acquiring the  land in question for extension of  S.T. Bus  stand and  depot  in  Pandharpur  in Maharashtra State.  It is  no doubt  true that Pandharpur is one of  the ancient and renowned temple town of Lord Vithoba to which  all the devotees from several parts of the States, in particular  of Karnataka,  Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra congregate particularly in Ashadhamas. It is the case of the appellant that  due to  traffic congestion  it would  not be feasible to extend the existing S.T. Bus stand and the depot in the  congested area  which gets reflected from the orders passed by  the Municipality,  the recommendation made by the District Collector  and also  the resolutions  passed by the Municipality in  that behalf.  It is  also the  case of  the appellant that  under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Acts 1966 unless the user is changed by proper notification, the  land which  is reserved  for  residential purpose cannot  be used  for commercial  purpose. Therefore, the acquisition in question is bad in law.      The only question is: whether the impugned notification is bad  in law?  Extension of  the bus  stand obviously is a public purpose  and, therefore,  it per se cannot be said to be bad  in law.  It is  true as pointed out by the Collector and the  representation dated  August 8,  1986 made  in that behalf  by   some  people   that  there  is  congestion  and acquisition is  not in  public interest.  But it  is for the Government to take a decision and it is not for the Court to decide as  to which  place is  more  convenient.  Since  the Government have taken a decision that acquiring the land for extension of  the bus  stand and  bus depot is in the public

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

interest, it  cannot be  said that the exercise of the power is arbitrary.      It is  contended by  Shri U.R.  Lalit,  learned  senior counsel that when large congregation of lakhs of people come thronging the  temple  town  of  Lord  Vithoba,  instead  of relieving the  congestion by shifting the existing bus stand and bus  depot to  some place  in the  out-skirts  of  city, extension itself  will add  to the  congregation. Though the argument may  be plausible and attractive, we cannot go into that question.  It is  for the Government to take a decision and it  is not  for this  Court to  give any finding in that behalf. The  Government did  take  contra  decision.  It  is equally true  that the  area was  reserved  for  residential purpose. It  is not  the case that they are establishing the bus stand  in the  residential area  for the  first time. In fact bus  stand is already existing and acquisition was only for  extension  of  the  existing  bus  stand.  Under  these circumstances,  we   do  not   find  that   there   is   any justification warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.