QHUNA BHIKHA PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are directed against two sets of notifications one set consisting of a notification dated 29th June 1959 issued under sec. 4 and a notification dated 23rd November 1960 issued under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and the other set consisting of B notification dated 25th July 1959 issued under sec. 4 and a notification dated 12th May 1960 issued under sec. 6 of that Act. These notifications affect various lands which belong to one or the other petitioner in these petitions and since identical questions of law arise in these petitions they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The purpose for which the acquisition was made under the impugned notifications was described Low Income Group Housing Scheme near Bhaktinagar Station and it is clear on the affidavits that this public purpose was to be executed by the Saurashtra Housing Board. It is also common ground between the parties that the Low Income Group Housing Scheme near Bhaktinagar Station was sanctioned and published in accordance with the provisions of the Saurashtra Housing Board Act 1954 on 20th September 1962 and it would therefore appear that on the dates when the impugned notifications were issued the Saurashtra Housing Board could not have proceeded with the execution of the Low Income Group Housing Scheme near Bhaktinagar Station. But admittedly on the Low Income Group Housing Scheme near Bhaktinagar Station being sanctioned and published on 20th September 1962 the Gujarat Housing Board which succeeded the Saurashtra Housing Board by reason of the enactment of the Gujarat Housing Board Act 1961 became entitled to proceed with the execution of the said Scheme. It was also an admitted position between the parties that entire cost of acquisition was to come out of the fund of the Saurashtra Housing Board and that no part of the compensation was to be paid out of public revenues. On these facts the petitioners challenged the impugned notifications as invalid and there were four grounds on which the challenge was based:

(2.) Re : Ground (A). The ground is already covered by a decision given by us today in Special Civil Applications Nos. 230 to 234 of 1964 and it must therefore be rejected.

(3.) Re: Grounds (B) and (C). Both these grounds are covered by the decision given by a Full Bench of this Court on 16th April 1968 in Special Civil Application No. 944 of 1963 (Ramji Ponotbhai Patel v. Jamnadas Shah & Ors X G.L.R. 164) and therefore in accordance with that decision they must be decided against the petitioners.