MANUBHAI JEHTALAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by certificate arise from the decision of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 46 of 1966 and connected petitions. The certificate was granted under unamended Article 133(1) (c). The substantial question of law of general public importance which appealed to the High Court to grant certificate about the vires of Secs. 4, 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 18.

(2.) Vires of sec. 4 were examined by this Court inBai Malimbu v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 515 : (1978) 2 SCC 373 and it was held that sec. 4 was intra vires the Constitution. In reaching this conclusion this Court referred to the two earlier decisions of this Court on the subject and held that sec. 4 was intra vires the Constitution. Nothing was made out to depart from that view. The reasons which weighed with this Court to uphold the validity of sec. 4 would mutatis mutandis apply to the challenge to the vires of Secs. 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. We accordingly hold he Secs. 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are ultra vires the Constitution. In fact that disposes of the certificate.

(3.) However, Mr. Gopal Subramaniam learned Counsel for the appellants in all these appeals raised two other contentions. The first contention canvassed by him on behalf of the appellant is that the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation is a company within the meaning of the expression in the Companies Act as well as in Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act and this being an acquisition for a company it was obligatory to comply with the provisions contained in Part VII as well as Company Acquisition Rules and that admittedly having not been done, the acquisition is contrary to law, illegal and invalid. Land is indisputably acquired for the benefit of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation which is a company. Even where land is acquired for a company, the State Government has the power to acquire land for a public purpose from the revenue of the State. In other words, this is an acquisition for public purpose with contribution from the State revenue. The State is acquiring land to carry out public purpose with the instrumentality of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. It is not an acquisition for a company with the funds exclusively provided by the company which would attract Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, the High Court is right in reaching the conclusion that neither Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act nor the Company Acquisition Rules would be attracted. Therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusion reached by the High Court.