RATILAL SHAKARABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only reason why this appeal had to be heard by this Court is that the appellants were entitled in law for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution as against the order the High Court summarily dismissing their writ petition on the strength of which they had a right of appeal to this Court.

(2.) The appellants are the owners of certain lands in village Wadaj in Ahmedabad. Some areas out of those lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on March 19, 1964 for a housing scheme prepared by the 3rd respondent, a co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The notification under Section 4 was followed up by an enquiry under Section 5 (a). Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of that Act was issued on October 1, 1964. This was followed up by other proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. During the pendency of those proceedings, the appellants moved the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings. That petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court.

(3.) The acquisition proceedings were challenged before us on various grounds. we shall now proceed to deal with the grounds urged before us. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the proposed acquisition was for a company and as no steps were taken under Ss. 40 to 42 of the Land Acquisition Act, the proceedings are vitiated. It is conceded on behalf of the State that the agreements contemplated by Ss. 40 to 42 were not entered into. But it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the acquisition in question was not for the purpose of a company but it was for a public purpose. Both the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 say that the proposed acquisition was for a public purpose namely for a housing scheme undertaken by Shri Alapa Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Ahmedabad with the sanction of the Government. Therefore, if the proposed acquisition is not for a company but for a public purpose then there was no need to comply with Ss. 40 to 42.