STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. INDERJIT O PAREKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 23, 1965 a notification under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in order to acquire lands specified in the notification for the purpose of "construction of light factories and residential quarters for members of the Vishwakarma Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandal Ltd., Ahmedabad for engaging itself in light industrial work which is for a public purpose. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted a Writ Petition in the High Court in order to challenge the aforesaid notification. The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the aforesaid notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the earlier notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereupon the State of Gujarat has approached this Court by way of present appeal by special leave.

(2.) The notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which were challenged by the original Writ Petitioners were quashed upon the High Court accepting two submissions urged on behalf of the Writ Petitioners. These two submissions which were upheld by the High Court, have been set out by the High Court in its judgment as under:-

(3.) So far as the second point is concerned, the High Court has proceeded on the assumption that the agreement was executed on June 11, 1965. On this assumption the High Court has taken the view that the report made by the competent authority under S. 5-A on June 17, 1965 could not have been considered by the State Government. Once the conclusion is reached that the modified agreement was executed on September 17, 1965 or as a sequel to the resolution of 17th September, 1965, the very basis of this contention disappears. We have already pointed out the reasons for reaching the conclusion that the agreement was modified pursuant to the resolution dated September 17, 1965. Under the circumstances, the contention that the report under S. 5-A dated June 17, 1965 could not have been considered on the date on which the agreement was accepted by the State Government cannot survive. Since the modification itself was made pursuant to the resolution dated September 17, 1965, and it was the modified agreement which was subsequently accepted by the State Government and published in the Government Gazette, it follows that the report dated June 17, 1965 was already before the State Government. And it would be wrong to say that the State Government could not have considered the report on or before the date on which the agreement was executed. The second ground for quashing must also accordingly fail.