BALDEVBHAI NATHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are owners of lands bearing survey Nos. 520 521 and 522/1 situate in village Naroda Taluka City Ahmedabad District. BY a notification dated 7th December 1961 issued under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the State Government notified that different lands admeasuring about 9000 acres were likely to be needed for a public purpose namely establishing an industrial town for heavy and medium industries. The petitioners lands were amongst those covered by the said notification and the petitioners therefore filed a petition being Special Civil Application No. 545 of 1962 challenging the validity of the said notification on the ground that the purpose for which the acquisition was sought to be made was not a public purpose. The petition was however dismissed by this Court by a judgment given on 21st February 1963 and the State Government thereafter proceeded to issue a notification dated 6th March 1963 under sec. 6 of the Act declaring that out of the lands notified in sec. 4 notification certain lands described in the Schedule were needed for the public purpose namely establishing an industrial town for heavy and medium industries. The petitioners lands were not included in the Schedule to this notification and the petition is therefore not directly concerned with the validity of this notification. Suffice it to state that pursuant to this notification possession of the lands comprised in the Schedule to this notification was taken by the State Government on 16th April 1963. The State Government thereafter issued another notification dated 4th September 1963 under sec. 6 of the Act declaring that certain further lands out of the lands notified under sec. 4 notification including the petitioners lands were needed for the public purpose namely establishing an industrial town for heavy and medium industries. The State Government also gave a direction under sec. 17 sub-sec. (1) that as the acquisition of the said lands was urgently necessary the Collector should on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under sec. 9 sub-sec. (1) take possession of all arable lands specified in the Schedule to the said notification. The notice under sec. 9 sub-sec. (1) was thereafter published and an individual notice was also served on the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to hand over possession of their lands on 8th October 1963. The petitioners thereupon fifed the present petition challenging the validity of the second sec. 6 notification which affected them and the petition was admitted on 5 October 1963. No order as to interim relief was however passed with the result that possession of the petitioners lands was taken over by the State Government on 19th November 1963. Certain amendments were thereafter made in the petition with leave of the Court and the real controversy between the parties before us turns on the points raised in the amendments to the petition.

(2.) There were three grounds on which the petitioners challenged the validity of the impugned notification under sec. 6 and they were:-

(3.) RE:- GROUND A. In order to arrive at a proper determination of this contention it is necessary to understand the true import of the requirement of the proviso to sec. 6(1). The proviso in so far as is material says that no declaration for a public purpose under sec. 6 shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for the property is to be paid..wholly or partly out of public revenues. On a plain grammatical construction of its language this injunction involves two requirements One is that prior to the issue of the notification under sec. 6 the State Government must make up its mind from what fund compensation is to be paid:- it must reach a decision that the compensation is to be paid wholly out of public revenues. And the other is that this decision must be implemented:- compensation must in fact be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues. Since at the stage of issue of sec. 6 notification payment of compensation is yet to be made the words used in the proviso are to be paid but when the proviso says to the State Government:- You shall not make a declaration for a public purpose unless compensation is going to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues it means that compensation must in fact come wholly or partly out of public revenues. The object of the enactment clearly is that where acquisition is for a public purpose the State Government must back-up the acquisition by contributing from public revenues. It is in recognition of the fact that no part of the public revenues can be spent except for a public purpose that this requirement is prescribed and even a rupee contribution is held sufficient compliance with this requirement. This object would be defeated if it were open to the State Government to change its mind after issue of sec. 6 notification and contribute nothing out of public revenues. It would make a mockery of the obligation imposed by the proviso and render it wholly meaningless. There can be no charm in insisting upon a mere decision at the stage of issue of sec. 6 notification which may not be subsequently implemented. What is necessary to constitute compliance with the proviso is that before sec. 6 notification is issued there must be a decision of the State Government that compensation is to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues and that decision must continue to operate throughout right upto the stage of implementation and in accordance with that decision compensation must in fact be borne wholly or in part by public revenues. Let us see whether this requirement of the proviso is satisfied in the present case.