GIRDHARLAL AMRATLAL SHODHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting question as to the effect of the cancellation of a notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 in relation to a notification issued under section 4 and of the issuance of another notification thereafter under sec. 6 without issuing a fresh notification under section 4 and without holding a fresh enquiry under section 5A. The question arises from the following facts:-

(2.) In the meanwhile some thirteen Government servants belonging to the Revenue Department of the Government of Gujarat formed a co-operative housing society which was duly registered under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act 1925 The society which is the third respondent herein applied to the Collector of Ahmedabad for acquiring under the Land Acquisition Act the aforesaid plot submitting along with its application a lay-out of the tenements which the society proposed to construct for its thirteen members. As required by the relevant rules framed for the purpose by the Government the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer filled in Forms A and B on July 8 1950 and sent them to the Government requesting the Government to approve the building scheme submitted by the society and to extend the benefit of the Land Acquisition (Bombay Amendment) Act IV of 1948. Section 2 of that Act defined a housing scheme meaning thereby any housing scheme which the Government may from time to time undertake for the purpose of increasing accommodation for housing persons including any scheme undertaken from time to time with the previous sanction of the State Government by a local authority or company. By virtue of section 3 of the Act and the effect of that Act if land was acquired by the Government the owner or the person interested in such land would be entitled to get compensation at the rate prevailing either on the date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or on January 1 1948 whichever was less. Act IV of 1948 is however not of particular significance in this petition as the Supreme Court by its judgment in Civil Appeals No. 775 and 776 of 1962 decided on October 5 1964 has declared the Act to be void and therefore the lands acquired by the Government no longer can be valued at the rates therein provided but have to be valued in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 To resume the narration of facts the additional Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report dated July 22 1960 to the State Government through the Collector requesting the Government to issue a notification under section 4. On August 3 1960 the Government of Gujarat by its memorandum directed a notification to be issued under section 4 approving thereby the building scheme submitted by the third respondent society and which became thereupon a housing scheme within the meaning of section 2 of the Bombay Act IV of 1948. On that very day i. e. August 3 1960 the Government issued a notification under section 4 stating therein that the land specified in the schedule thereto was likely to be needed for a public purpose namely for the construction of houses for the third respondent society That notification also stated that if the Government were to be satisfied that the said land was needed for the aforesaid purpose a final notification to that effect under section 6 would be published in the gazette. An enquiry under section 5A of the Act was thereafter held by the authorised officer on the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners and a report according to sub-section (2) of section 5A was made to the Government. The Government on coming to a decision as contemplated by section 5 entered into an agreement with the third respondent society dated January 31 1961 which agreement inter alia provided that the entire cost of acquisition was to be borne by the third respondent society and the Government of Gujarat was not to contribute to the costs of acquisition from public revenues. On July 18 1961 the State Government issued a notification under section 6 of the Act stating therein that the said land was needed to be acquired at the expense of the third respondent society for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule thereto. That column stated that the public purpose for which the land was needed was for construction of houses for the third respondent society. A declaration to that effect was also set out in the said notification as required by sec. 6 Thereupon the present petition was filed on September 22 1961 and on September 25 1961 this Court issued a Rule and granted an interim injunction restraining the Government from proceeding further with the acquisition and taking possession. In the meantime the Supreme Court gave its decision in R. L. Arora v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 S. C. 764 and presumably in view of that decision and realising that the notification under sec. 6 dated July 18 1961 was untenable the Government by a notification dated April 28 1964 cancelled the aforesaid notification. On August 14 1964 the Government issued a fresh notification under section 6 which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette on August 20 1964 without issuing a fresh notification under section 4 without holding a fresh enquiry under section 5A without inviting objections thereunder and without having a fresh report on such fresh enquiry. By that notification it was declared that the Government of Gujarat was satisfied after considering the report of the Collector under sec. 5A(2) of the Act that the said land was needed to be acquired at the public expense for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule thereto. The public purpose stated in that column was for the housing scheme undertaken by Shri Krishnakunj Government servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Ahmedabad with sanction of the Government. The declaration contained therein and required under sec. 6(2) was that the land was required for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule to that notification.

(3.) Since the new notification dated August 14 1964 was issued pending the final disposal of this petition the petitioners applied for leave to amend the petition to enable them to challenge the validity of the new notification and we allowed the amendment giving liberty to the respondents to file additional returns. This has been done by respondent No. 1. It is not necessary to go into the details of the several contentions raised in the petition as also in the amendment for Mr. Desai for the petitioners raised only the following contentions, namely-