GULABRAO KESHAVRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Having heard the Counsels on both sides and given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions, we propose to dispose of the matter on merits. The only question is whether the appropriate Government under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) (for short, "the Act") has decided the objections raised by the claimants for further action under Sec. 6 of the Act. The Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation, authorised by its resolution dated February 27, 1992, "the Municipal Commissioner to take appropriate action to acquire the land in question for relieving parking and traffic congestion near Surat railway station. On July 31, 1992, permission was granted by the Town Planning Department to the Corporation to acquire the land in question under Sec. 78 of the Town Planning Act. A declaration in that behalf was made. Accordingly on October 29, 1992, the Collector had published the notification under Sec. 4()) of the Act. It is stated in the declaration that "the District Collector of Surat feels that the lands shown in the attached list may be required for the road and parking for the purpose of public at large by Surat Municipal Corporation" Thereafter, notice under Sec. 5-A was issued and the appellant had objected to the acquisition in his objections dated 4-1-1993 and 23-2-1993. Later the Land Acquisition Officer duly conducted the enquiry under Sec. 5A(1) and submitted the report to the Government for appropriate decision in that behalf. Here, the dispute arises as to whether the decision has been taken by the State Government to proceed with the acquisition or to stop further action in that behalf. It is seen that the Revenue Department of the State Government had decided, as reflected in the letter dated 12-7-1993 written by the Section Officer of the Revenue Department that "taking into consideration the objection submitted by the account-holder and that taking into consideration the legal position and also the revenue circular dated 20-6-1970 notification under Sec. 6 cannot be sanctioned. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to do the necessary proceedings accordingly". The Ministry of Urban Development did not agree with the view of the Ministry of Revenue. Consequently, they moved the Chief Minister to have the issue re-examined. However, before a decision was taken the Section Officer of the Revenue Department communicated its decision to the Land Acquisition Officer to take further action as indicated above. Since action was not being taken in that behalf, the appellants have approached the High Court for necessary directions under Art. 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned order dated 7-12-1994, made in Special Civil Application No. 7890 of 1994, the High Court had held that the Government had not taken the decision under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 5-A of the Act, Therefore, the writ petition was rejected. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the communication sent by the Section Officer, referred to hereinbefore, read with the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Revenue Department which says that "I say that noting made by me in the file that "(I) may be submitted to Government (II) legal position being what it is, it will serve no useful purpose in discussing the issue in formal meeting with Urban Development Department (UDD)" is in agreement to the noting of Shri Shamji Patel, the then Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department as aforesaid". The Minister for Revenue had approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue department on July 6, 1993 not to take further action under Sec. 4(1). Therefore, the citizen is made to believe that the Government have taken a decision under its Business Rules not to proceed with the acquisition. The High Court, therefore, was not right in its conclusion that the decision was not taken. The High Court has noted in the judgment that it had perused the note file regarding the decision taken by the Revenue Minister but nonetheless concluded that it is not a final decision. When the matter came up before this Court on November 2, 1995, this Court after hearing the Counsel on either side directed the Government to produce the Business Rules under which the competent authority required to take a decision so that we can proceed on the legal premise whether Section Officer's letter founded on legal premises. Today, the learned Counsel has placed before us the Business Rules.