{"id":154440,"date":"2005-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-25T05:37:06","modified_gmt":"2015-06-25T00:07:06","slug":"hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2254 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nHindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDarius Shapur Chenai & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/09\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
W I T H <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2253 OF 2005<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
\tHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited  was a tenant in the
\npremises in question wherefor an agreement of tenancy was entered into by
\nand between the father of the First Respondent and Caltex (India) Limited
\nfor a period of ten years from 15.12.1965.  On or about 24.12.1974, another
\ndeed of lease was executed by the mother of the Respondent No. 1 in favour
\nof  Caltex (India) Limited for a period of five years expiring on 31.7.1979.
\nOn or about 30.12.1976, the Caltex (Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil
\nRefining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India)
\nLimited) Ordinance, 1976 (which was replealed and replaced by  the Caltex
\n(Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the
\nUndertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited) Act, 1977) was
\npromulgated whereby and whereunder  right, title and interest of Caltex
\n(India) Ltd. in relation to its undertakings in India stood transferred to and
\nvested in the Central Government.  The Central Government, however, in
\nexercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 9 of the said Act
\ndirected that the said undertakings shall, instead of continuing to vest in the
\nCentral Government, vest in Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., a Govt.
\ncompany with effect from 30.12.1976.  Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. was
\nlater on amalgamated with the Appellant herein in terms of Sub-section 3 of
\nSection 7 of the said Act.  The Appellant herein, thus, was at the liberty to
\nrenew the period of lease for a period of further five years with effect from
\n1.8.1979 on the same terms and conditions as contained in the deed of lease
\ndated 24.12.1974.  The Appellant herein exercised  its option of renewing
\nthe lease with effect from 24.4.1979.  On the expiry of the said period, an
\neviction proceeding was initiated by the First Respondent against the
\nAppellant by filing a suit which was marked as O.S. No. 737 of 1985.  The
\nsaid suit for eviction was decreed.  An appeal preferred thereagainst was
\ndismissed.  The Regional Manager of the Appellant herein thereafter sent a
\nrequisition to the Special Deputy Collector for acquisition of the land for the
\npurpose of continuing the business wherefor a notification was published on
\n15.10.1985.  However, the said notification lapsed.  On or about 3.6.1989, a
\nfresh notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
\n(for short “the Act”).  The First Respondent filed a detailed objection on 20th
\nJuly, 1989 contending that there existed no public purpose for acquisition of
\nthe said land and in any event, other suitable lands are available therefor.
\nUpon giving an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents, the Collector is
\nsaid to have conducted an enquiry and submitted his  Report to the
\nGovernment on or about 28.8.1989.  A declaration thereafter was issued
\nunder Section 6 of the Act on 25.9.1989.  Questioning the said notification,
\nthe First Respondent herein filed a writ petition in the High Court which was
\nmarked as W.P. No. 16012 of 1989.  Although, the Deputy Collector and the
\nAppellant filed their counter affidavits in the said proceedings, no counter
\naffidavit was filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the said writ
\npetition.  An appeal thereagainst was filed before this Court marked as Civil
\nAppeal No. 910 of 1998 and by an order dated 19.8.1998 the judgment of
\nthe High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court
\non the ground that several other contentious issues have been raised.  The
\nparties were, however, granted liberty to file additional pleadings.  Pursuant
\nto or in furtherance of such liberty, the First Respondent herein raised
\nadditional grounds by filing a Miscellaneous Application which was marked
\nas WPMP No. 27633 of 2003 contending  inter alia therein that there had
\nbeen a total non-application of mind on the part of the State Government
\nboth before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration
\nunder Section 6 of the Act.  A counter-affidavit was filed by Respondent
\nNos. 2 and 3 affirmed by one Shri B. Venkataiah, Special Deputy Collector,
\nLand Acquisition (General) both for himself as also the State in the said
\nMiscellaneous Application.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is not in dispute that the High Court upon satisfying itself directed
\nthe State to produce the records relating to the case.  An affidavit affirmed
\nby one Shri K.V. Rao was filed on 7th November, 2003 stating that the
\nrecords were not readily traceable in view of shifting of Industries and
\nCommerce Department within the premises of the Secretariat Buildings
\ntwice in four years.  An apology was also tendered for non-production of
\nrecords.  By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been
\nallowed.  The Appellant being aggrieved thereby are before us.  We may,
\nhowever, notice that the Appellant herein had prayed for twelve weeks of
\ntime to vacate the premises which was granted by an order dated 19th
\nDecember, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. K. Ramamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
\nthe Appellant and Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned senior counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the State inter alia raised the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tHaving regard to the scheme of the Act if a public purpose is
\nestablished, the declaration made would be conclusive in terms of
\nSection 6(3) of the Act in respect of both the need and the public
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tIn view of the provision contained in  Section 3(f)(iv) of the Act, the
\nRespondents could not contend that the purpose for which the
\nnotification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, was not  public
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tOnce the owner of the land has been given an opportunity to file his
\nobjections which were considered by the Collector; and if the
\nrecommendation made by him is accepted by the Government, the
\nowner is not entitled to be afforded any further opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) \tIt is not open to the owner of the land to challenge the proceedings on
\nthe ground that the Government has not assgined reasons for rejecting
\nthe objection.\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tOn the facts and circumstances of this case when the acquisition
\nproceedings have been done in accordance with law, the submission
\non behalf of the Respondents that the same has been exercised for a
\ncolourable exercise of power is not tenable in law.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) \tEven if the acquisition has the effect of nullifying a decree passed by
\na civil court, the same would not be a ground for quashing the
\nacquisition proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
 \tDr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nFirst Respondent would, on the other hand, submit:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tAlthough the Act is an imperial legislation, it has essentially three
\nbroad components:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe acquisition for a public purpose.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tPayment of compensation\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tBy taking appropriate due process both while determining
\nsuitability for the public purpose and other acquisitory and
\ncompensatory aspects.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe purpose although may a public purpose within the meaning of
\nSection 3(2)(f) of the Act and a declaration is made under Section 6
\nthereof, it would not be correct to contend that the acquisition would
\nbe beyond the pale of judicial review.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tSince by reason of the provisions of the Act, the owner is deprived of
\nhis right to property, the provisions thereof must be strictly construed.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tSection 5-A of the Act being the heart of the Act gives the citizen to
\navail of the only opportunity to make submissions both on the public
\npurpose and the suitability of the acquisition in respect of his land,
\nand, thus, being a valuable right which is akin to a fundamental right,
\nthe procedures laid down therein must be strictly complied with.\n<\/p>\n
(v) \tSection 5-A consists of two parts, viz., hearing of objections by the
\nCollector and decision of the Government on the objections on the
\nbasis of the Collector’s Report and both the parts must be strictly
\ncomplied with.\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tIdeally, reasons are required to be assigned while passing an order
\nunder Section 5-A of the Act but even if the same is not required to be
\nassigned, reasons for order must exist on the record.\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tThere exists a difference between a subjective satisfaction clause,
\nwhere the Government has to be satisfied, and a dispositive clause,
\nwhere the Government has to decide on the basis of submissions made
\nto it.  In the latter case, there is an even stricter scrutiny to consider
\nwhether a determination has been properly made after due
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\tWhere the Court feels that the appropriate scrutiny requires that
\nrecords be examined in land acquisition cases, such records must be
\nmade available.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe main question which fell for its consideration before the High
\nCourt was whether the objections raised by the Appellant objecting to the
\nacquisition of land on various grounds have been considered by the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable right
\nin favour of a person whose lands are sought to be acquired.  Having regard
\nto the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, the
\nState in exercise of its power of ’eminent domain’ may interfere with the
\nright of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for
\na public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIndisputably, the definition of public purpose  is of wide amplitude
\nand takes within its sweep the acquisition of land for a corporation owned or
\ncontrolled by the State, as envisaged under Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (f) of
\nSection 3 of the Act.  But the same would not mean that the State is the sole
\njudge therefore and no judicial review shall lie.  [See Jilubhai Nanbhai
\nKhachar and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another  (1995) Supp (1) SCC
\n596] .\n<\/p>\n
\tThe conclusiveness contained in Section 6 of the Act indisputably is
\nattached to a need as also the purpose and in this regard ordinarily, the
\njurisdiction of the court is limited but it is equally true that when an
\nopportunity of being heard has expressly been conferred by a statute, the
\nsame must scrupulously be complied with.   For the said purpose, Sections 4,
\n5-A and 6 of the Act must be read conjointly. The court  in a case, where
\nthere has been total non-compliance or substantial non-compliance of the
\nprovisions of Section 5-A of the Act, cannot fold its hands and refuse to
\ngrant a relief to the writ petitioner.  Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act
\nrenders a declaration to be a conclusive evidence.  But when the decision
\nmaking process itself is in question, the power of judicial review can be
\nexercised by the court in the event the order impugned suffers from well-
\nknown principles, viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
\nMoreover, when a statutory authority exercises such enormous power it must
\nbe done in a fair and reasonable manner.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is trite that hearing given to a person must be an effective one and
\nnot a mere formality.  Formation of opinion as regard the public purpose as
\nalso suitability thereof must be preceded by application of mind as regard
\nconsideration of relevant factors and rejection of irrelevant ones.  The State
\nin its decision making process must not commit any misdirection in law.   It
\nis also not in dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a valuable
\nimportant right and having regard to the provisions contained in Article
\n300A of the Constitution of India  has been held to be akin to a fundamental
\nright.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn State of Punjab and Another Vs. Gurdial Singh and Others [(1980)
\n2 SCC 471], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“Hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable
\nand pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this
\nadministrative fairness is constitutional anathema except
\nfor good reasons”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis Court in Om Prakash and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
\n[(1998) 6 SCC 1] held, thus:\n<\/p>\n
“21. Our attention was also invited by Shri Shanti
\nBhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to a
\ndecision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in the case
\nof State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh<\/a> wherein Krishna
\nIyer, J. dealing with the question of exercise of
\nemergency powers under Section 17 of the Act observed
\nin para 16 of the Report that save in real urgency where
\npublic interest did not brook even the minimum time
\nneeded to give a hearing, land acquisition authorities
\nshould not, having regard to Articles 14 and 19, burke an
\ninquiry under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, according to
\nthe aforesaid decision of this Court, inquiry under
\nSection 5-A is not merely statutory but also has a flavour
\nof fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the
\nConstitution though right to property has now no longer
\nremained a fundamental right, at least observation
\nregarding Article 14, vis-`-vis, Section 5-A of the Land
\nAcquisition Act would remain apposite.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said decision has been cited with approval in Union of India and
\nOthers Vs. Krishan Lal Arneja and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 453].\n<\/p>\n
 \tRecently, this Court in Union of India and Others Vs. Mukesh Hans
\n[(2004) 8 SCC 14] observed:\n<\/p>\n
“35. At this stage, it is relevant to notice that the limited
\nright given to an owner\/person interested under Section
\n5-A of the Act to object to the acquisition proceedings is
\nnot an empty formality and is a substantive right, which
\ncan be taken away for good and valid reason and within
\nthe limitations prescribed under Section 17(4) of the Act.
\nThe object and importance of Section 5-A inquiry was
\nnoticed by this Court in the case of Munshi Singh v.
\nUnion of India wherein this Court held thus: (SCC p.
\n\t342, para 7)
\n“7. Section 5-A embodies a very just and
\nwholesome principle that a person whose property is
\nbeing or is intended to be acquired should have a
\nproper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the
\nauthorities concerned that acquisition of the property
\nbelonging to that person should not be made. … The
\nlegislature has, therefore, made complete provisions
\nfor the persons interested to file objections against the
\nproposed acquisition and for the disposal of their
\nobjections. It is only in cases of urgency that special
\npowers have been conferred on the appropriate
\nGovernment to dispense with the provisions of
\nSection 5-A:””\n<\/p>\n
 \tSuch an opportunity of being heard is necessary to be granted with a
\nview to show that the purpose for which the acquisition proceeding is sought
\nto be made is not a public purpose as also the suitability of land therefor.
\n[See Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Mohd. Shafi and Others, (1992) 2
\nSCC 168, State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. A. Mohammed Yousef and
\nOthers, (1991) 4 SCC 224, Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana
\nand Others, (1988) 4 SCC 534 and Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad and
\nAnother Vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and
\nAnother, (1976) 3 SCC 719].\n<\/p>\n
In Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election
\nCommissioner, New Delhi and others [(1978) 1 SCC 405], this Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
“43. Indeed, natural justice is a pervasive facet of secular
\nlaw where a spiritual touch enlivens legislation,
\nadministration and adjudication, to make fairness a creed
\nof life. It has many colours and shades, many forms and
\nshapes and, save where valid law excludes it, applies
\nwhen people are affected by acts of authority. It is the
\nhone of healthy government, recognised from earliest
\ntimes and not a mystic testament of \tjudge-made law.
\nIndeed, from the legendary days of Adam  and of
\nKautilya’s Arthasastra  the rule of law has had this
\nstamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We
\nneed not go into these deeps for the present except to
\nindicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are
\nnoble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be
\nsustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant
\nprinciple, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our
\njurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the
\nAnglo-American system.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tEven a judicial review on facts in certain situations may be available.
\nIn Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam [(2005) 3 SCC
\n241], this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“34It is now well settled that a quasi-judicial authority
\nmust pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at
\na correct finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads to
\na wrong answer. In this case, furthermore, the
\nmisdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal
\nwas apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle of
\nres ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose of
\nthis case and, thus, failed to take into consideration a
\nrelevant factor and furthermore took into consideration
\nan irrelevant fact not germane for determining the issue,
\nnamely, that the passengers of the bus were mandatorily
\nrequired to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal further
\nfailed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to
\na domestic enquiry, which is “preponderance of
\nprobability” and applied the standard of proof required
\nfor a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was, thus,
\nclearly made out.\n<\/p>\n
35. Errors of fact can also be a subject-matter of
\njudicial review. (See E. v. Secy. of State for the Home
\nDeptt.) Reference in this connection may also be made to
\nan interesting article by Paul P. Craig, Q.C. titled
\n“Judicial Review, Appeal and Factual Error” published in
\n2004 Public Law, p. 788.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 5-A of the Act is in two parts.  Upon receipt of objections, the
\nCollector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary
\nwhereupon he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect
\nof the land which is the subject matter of notification under Section 4(1) of
\nthe Act.  The said Report would also contain recommendations on the
\nobjections filed by the owner of the land.  He is required to forward the
\nrecords of the proceedings held by him together with the report.  On receipt
\nof such a Report together with the records of the case, the Government is to
\nrender a decision thereupon.  It is now well-settled in view of a catena of
\ndecisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not
\ncontain any reason. [See Kalumiya  Karimmiya Vs. The State of Gujarat and
\nOthers, (1977) 1 SCC 715 and Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban
\nand Others, (2000) 7 SCC 296].\n<\/p>\n
 \tHowever, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land
\nand the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite,
\nmust precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government.
\nAs and when a person aggrieved questions the decision making process, the
\ncourt in order to satisfy itself as to whether one or more grounds for judicial
\nreview exists, may  call for the records whereupon such records must be
\nproduced.  The writ petition was filed in the year 1989.  As noticed
\nhereinbefore, the said writ petition was allowed.  This Court, however,
\ninterfered with the said order of the High Court and remitted the matter back
\nto it upon  giving an opportunity to the parties to raise additional pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
 \tContention of Mr. Chaudhari to the effect that for long the additional
\nground relating to non-application of mind on the part of the State had not
\nbeen raised and, thus, it might not be necessary for the State to file a
\ncounter-affidavit does not appeal to us.  When a rule nisi was issued the
\nState was required to produce the records and file a counter-affidavit.  If it
\ndid not file any counter-affidavit, it may, subject to just exceptions, be held
\nto have admitted the allegations made in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn view of the fact that the action required to be taken by the State
\nGovernment is distinct and different from the action required to be taken by
\nthe Collector; when  the ultimate order is in question it was for the State to
\nsatisfy the court about the validity thereof and for the said purpose the
\ncounter-affidavit filed on behalf of a Collector cannot be held to be
\nsufficient compliance of the requirements of law.  The job of the Collector in
\nterms of Section 5-A would be over once he submits his report. The Land
\nAcquisition Collector would not know the contents of the proceedings
\nbefore the State and, therefore, he would be incompetent to affirm an
\naffidavit on its behalf.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFurthermore, the State is required to apply its mind not only on the
\nobjections filed by the owner of the land but also on the Report which is
\nsubmitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor
\nas also the recommendations made by him in that behalf.   The State
\nGovernment may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out
\ntherefore, for arriving at its own satisfaction that it is necessary to deprive a
\ncitizen of his right to property.  It is in that situation production of records by
\nthe State is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Gurdip Singh Uban (supra), whereupon Mr. Ramamoorthy placed
\nstrong reliance, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“50. No reasons or other facts need be mentioned in the
\nSection 6 declaration on its face. If the satisfaction is
\nchallenged in the court, the Government can show the
\nrecord upon which the Government acted and justify the
\nsatisfaction expressed in the Section 6 declaration.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was, thus, for the State to justify its action by production of record
\nor otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe counter-affidavit filed on 30th October, 2003 was also affirmed by
\na Special Deputy Collector.  A presumption having regard to the passage of
\ntime can be raised that he was not the Collector who had made enquiry
\nunder Section 5-A of the Act and given an opportunity of hearing to the
\nowner of the land.  It has not been averred by him as to who had authorized
\nhim to affirm the affidavit on behalf of the State or how he was acquainted
\nwith the fact of the matter.  In terms of the Rules of Executive Business, he
\nis not authorized to act on behalf of the State.  We have noticed
\nhereinbefore, that only when the High Court directed production of records a
\nPrincipal Secretary to the Government affirmed an affidavit wherein it was
\nnot stated that the records are lost but it was merely stated that they were not
\nreadily traceable.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Court in a situation of this nature expects that the authorities of
\nthe State would take due care and caution in preserving the records in
\nrelation whereto a lis is pending before a court of law.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe State was also a party in Civil Appeal No. 910 of 1998.  It is also
\nrelevant to note that even at that point of time, the State did not choose to
\nprefer any appeal before this Court against the judgment and order passed by
\na learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 27.3.1997.  The learned
\ncounsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant herein accepted that the
\nsatisfaction required to be arrived at is not a subjective one but based on
\nobjective criteria.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSubmission of Mr. Chaudhary to the effect that the circumstances
\npointed out in the counter-affidavit filed in WPMP No. 27633 of 2003
\nshould be held to be substitute for the reasons which the State must be held
\nto have arrived at a decision, cannot be countenanced.  When an order is
\npassed by a statutory authority, the same must be supported either on the
\nreasons stated therein or the grounds available therefor in the record.  A
\nstatutory authority cannot be permitted to support its order relying on or on
\nthe basis of the statements made in the affidavit de’hors the order or for that
\nmatter de’hors the records.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji<\/a> [AIR
\n1952 SC 16], it is stated :\n<\/p>\n
“We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in
\nexercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in
\nthe light of explanations subsequently given by the
\nofficer making the order of what he meant, or of what
\nwas in his mind; or what he intended to do.  Public
\norders made by public authorities are meant to have
\npublic effect and are intended to affect the actings and
\nconduct of those to whom they are addressed and must
\nbe construed objectively with reference to the language
\nused in the order itself.”\n<\/p>\n
\tYet again in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), this Court observed  :\n<\/p>\n
“The second equally relevant matter is that when a
\nstatutory functionary makes an order based on certain
\ngrounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
\nmentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons
\nin the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
\nbad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court
\non account of a challenge, get validated by additional
\ngrounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to
\nthe observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji.”\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring to Gordhandas Bhanji (supra),  it was further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they
\ngrow older.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t[The said decisions have been followed by this Court in Bahadursinh
\nLakhubhai Gohil Vs. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Others [(2004) 2 SCC
\n65].\n<\/p>\n
 \tAlthough assignment of reasons is the part of  principles of natural
\njustice, necessity thereof may be taken away by a statute either expressly or
\nby necessary implication.  A declaration contained in a notification issued
\nunder Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason but such a
\nnotification must precede the decision of the appropriate Government.
\nWhen a decision is required to be taken after giving an opportunity of
\nhearing to a person who may suffer civil or evil consequences by reason
\nthereof,  the same would mean an effective hearing.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Act is an expropriatory legislation.  This Court in State of
\nMadhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors. [1966 (3)
\nSCR 557] observed that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be
\nstrictly construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent.  [See
\nalso Khub Chand and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1967 (1) SCR
\n120 and Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd.,<\/a>
\n(2004) 1 SCC 597].\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere cannot, therefore, be any doubt that in a case of this nature  due
\napplication of mind on the part of the statutory authority was imperative.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is not a case where this Court is required to go into the question of
\nmalice either in fact or in law or the question of colourable exercise of
\npower by the State any other statutory authority.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn view of our findings aforementioned, it is not necessary for us to go
\ninto the other questions  raised by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
  \tFor the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the
\nimpugned judgment suffers from no legal infirmity.  These Appeals are,
\ntherefore, dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2254 of 2005 PETITIONER: Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. RESPONDENT: Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/09\/2005 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & C.K. Thakker JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154440","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4407,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005"},"wordCount":4407,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005","name":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-25T00:07:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-petroleum-corpn-ltd-vs-darius-shapur-chenai-ors-on-20-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors on 20 September, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154440","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}