ABDUL HUSSEIN TAYABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These sixteen petitions arise from a single set of notifications published by the State of Gujarat under secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter called the Act). Though petitioners are different respondents in all the petitions are common. Therefore with the consent of both the sides the petitions were set down for hearing together and a common argument was heard in respect of all the petitions. This judgment will dispose of all the sixteen petitions.

(2.) Petitioners are owners of their respective lands situated in the village Ranoli Taluka Baroda District Baroda. There are three respondents in each of the petitions. One of the respondents is the State of Gujarat (hereafter called the State) which purports to exercise the power of the eminent domain. One D. P. Dave is another respondent. He has been joined in his capacity as the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 2 Baroda. Though he occupied this position on the date of the filing of the petitions from the record it appears that one Dalsukhdas Karsandas Master who has filed an affidavit on behalf of respondents on 26th of August 1966 was at all relevant times the Special Land Acquisition Officer posted at Baroda who took all the steps before and after the commencement of the impugned acquisition proceedings. Suhrid Geigy Ltd. a company registered under the Indian Companies Act (hereafter called the company simpliciter) is the remaining respondent in all the petitions. This company owns about 140 acres of land in the village Ranoli. Petitioners also own lands measuring about 45 acres in the same village and the lands of petitioners form enclaves in the lands of the company. Petitioners lands were notified for acquisition by the State first on 22nd of July 1961 for acquisition under sec. 4 of the Act. The public purpose mentioned in the notification was the public purpose of the State for the establishment of a fertilizer factory. This notification was however withdrawn by the State on 11th September 1962 on the ground that the lands were not suitable for the establishment of a fertilizer factory. However on the very next day i.e. on 12th September 1962 the State issued another notification under sec. 4 for the acquisition of the same lands this time for the company. Petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1475 of 1965 filed a writ petition No. 1035 of 1962 challenging this notification and petitioners in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1479/65 and 1480/65 and Nos. 119 to 125 of 1966 filed a joint petition No. 977 of 1962 challenging the above notification. However during the pendency of the above two notifications the first Aroras case since reported in A. I. R. 1962 S. C. page 764 was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Rs the above notification was affected by that case the proposed acquisition became infructuous. However whilst those two petitions were still pending an Ordinance was published by the President introducing certain amendments in the Act which were primarily designed to get over the effect of the first Aroras case. This Ordinance was followed by the Acquisition Amendment Act XXXI of 1962 which came into operation retrospectively from 20th July 1962 which had also introduced the same amendments to the Act as the Ordinance did. The Central Government by virtue of the power conferred upon it by the newly added proviso to sec. 55 published rules called the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963 (hereafter called the. company rules) which became effective from 22nd June 1963. Thereafter on 24th July 1963 the State withdrew the notification dated 12th September 1962 which was impugned by some of petitioners under the aforesaid two petitions. Consequently the above petitioners withdrew those two petitions. However thereafter Mr. Master the Special Land Acquisition Officer held an enquiry under rule 4 of the company rules the details of which it will be necessary for us to mention in a later part of this judgment. After the enquiry was over the State published a fresh and a third notification dated 28th August 1964 under sec. 4 of the Act for acquiring petitioners lands for the company and appointed Mr. Master to perform the duties of the Collector under sec. 5A of the Act. Petitioners filed their objections. Those objections were however overruled by the State and a notification dated 18th October 1965 under sec. 6 was published by the State Government for acquiring the above lands. The purpose which is mentioned in both the notifications aforesaid is mentioned as follows :

(3.) Mr. M C. Shah had first formulated the following seven points for our decision. But as we shall presently point out though the first submission was widely formulated he restricted it to two narrow grounds and gave up the fourth and the sixth submission altogether and reformulated the seventh submission giving up a substantial portion thereof. We shall indicate the clarification and the changes in the respective submissions at the proper places. The submissions were as follows :