VASUDEV CHUNILAL PANCHOLI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases challenge is made by the petitioners to land acquisition proceedings in regard to acquisition of land for expansion of industrial estate by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation at Surendranagar. Two notifications for this purpose were published in the Gujarat Government Gazette one dated 8/11/1979 and another dated 10/04/1980 Pursuant to the notification dated 8/11/1979 notifications under sec. 6 were issued one without the urgency clause on 22nd of October 1982 and another applying the urgency clause on 4/11/1982 Pursuant to the second notification dated 10/04/1980 under sec. 4 of the Act similarly two notifications under sec. 6 were published one with the urgency clause on 5/03/1983 and another without the urgency clause earlier on 27th of January 1983 The petitioners in these cases have come to this Court very much later the earliest being on 29/12/1983 They challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground mainly that individual notices were not given to the petitioners who were the owners under sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and no enquiry under sec. 5A was held pursuant to such notice so much so that the declarations under sec. 6 are invalid and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. We would not have been inclined to issue notices on these petitions for reason of the inordinate delay in coming to this Court. Sec. 4 notices were published many years earlier and sec. 6 declarations are several months old and the challenge at this late hour need not in the exercise of discretion by this Court be entertained but it was men- tioned in Court by counsel for the petitioners that there was no service of notice under sec. 4(1) and no enquiry was held under sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and this alone persuaded us to issue notice. Therefore in issuing such notice we made it clear that we are doing so because we are told by counsel for the petitioners in the cases that there was no notice under sec. 4(1) and there was no enquiry under sec. 5A and we are unable to verify this fact with reference to file which we attempted to call for from the Government but we are told that it was not available on that day. We also made it clear that we need not be taken to have spoken on the question whether indivi- dual notices under sec. 4(1) of the Act were called for a matter on which the Court might have to deliberate. We directed status quo to be maintained pursuant to which we are told that status quo has been maintained Mr. Jadeja for the State of Gujarat and Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) Ahmedabad and Mr. Mehta for the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation waived service of notice. Direct service was permitted on the other respondents.

(2.) We have found from the file produced before us and the affi- davits filed in reply that the statement that in none of these cases notice under sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been served is not true nor is it true that no enquiry under sec. 5A of the Act was conducted. By reason of this development the petitioners in Sp. C. A. Nos. 6325 6351 6353 6355 and 6361 of 1983 filed affidavits apologising for making statements which were not correct and on which the Court acted to grant them interim relief. They prayed that they may be excused for making such statements. We have gone through these affidavits and though it is unfortunate that such statements should have been made we are not taking any further action in view of the apologies tendered to us. We see from the files that the notices were issued in these cases objections under sec. 5A were considered and therefore there is no scope for any challenge by the petitioners apart from the fact that the challenge would be highly belated in that a considerable time has passed after sec. 4(1) notice and even after sec. 6 declaration. No scope for interference in the above cases.

(3.) The petitioner in Sp.C.A. No. 6345 of 1983 can have no scope for complaint that notice under sec. 4(1) was not served on him because it is seen that he had purchased the property which is the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings after the notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. He purchased the land only on 22/11/1979 after the sec. 4(1) notification. This is not disputed. There could therefore be no notice to him. In regard to the petitioners in the other petitions it is said that notices were issued to some others whose names also appeared on the revenue records and it is therefore contended that in as much as the notices were not issued to the petitioners themselves there would be non-compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act sufficient to vitiate the proceed- ings. Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act contemplates the issue of a notification to the effect that it appears to the appropriate Govern- ment that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. The section also provides that the notification: