(1.) The principal question urged in this appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff of Civil Suit No. 1858 of 1970 on the file of City Civil Court Ahmedabad relates to the vires of the provisions of sec. 47(A) inserted by sec. 21 of the Land Acquisition (Gujarat) Unification and Amendment Act 1963 precluding the right to challenge the action of District Magistrate or the Police Commissioner for enforcing surrender of laud from a person opposing or impending in taking possession under the Land Acquisition Act. The question arises in the following circumstances: The land in question is of S. No. 1331 situate opposite Danapith Fire-Brigade building of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in the city of Ahmedabad. The plaintiff claims himself to be the occupant of the said land. It appears that a Notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on August 30 1955 and Notification under sec. 6 of the said Act was issued on June 25 1956 for purposes of extention of the office building of the Corporation. An award in that behalf appears to have been made in the month of December 1960. A notice as required under sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act intimating that award in respect of the land in question was issued on December 14 1960 The land acquired belonged to Sanni Muslim Wakf Committee from which the plaintiff claims himself to be the tenant. Though it is not clear from the record presumably for some intervening legal proceedings in nature of suits etc. the possession of the land could not be taken over from the aforesaid Committee inspite of the notice of December 14 1960 purported to be under sec. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. After the suits were disposed off somewhere in June 1969 the impugned notice of January 21 1970 was served on the plaintiff calling upon him to hand over quiet and peaceful possession of the land acquired.
(2.) Being aggrieved by this notice the plaintiff filed the present suit in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad seeking declaration that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to issue the notice and it was bad in law void and ineffective inasmuch as the acquisition proceedings were taken behind his back and also because sec. 47(A) under which the action was purported to have been taken is ultra vires the Constitution as violating Articles 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution.
(3.) The State Government as well as the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation who were original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 respectively resisted the suit contending inter alia that the Government was satisfied on the inquiry being held under sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act that the land was required for public purposes of the extension of the Municipal Office-building. Requisite notices were served on the persons inserted and the prescribed notification under sec. 6 was also made accordingly. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 4th December 1963 and the notice under sec. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the persons interested to hand over possession on 31st January 1961 Since the possession was not delivered the Taluka Magistrate was moved to enforce possession under sec. 47 of the Land Acquisition Act. The aggrieved persons had obtained injunctions restraining the defendants from enforcing the possession. The impugned notice of 31st January 1970 was issued when these injunctions were discharged. They also joined issue that sec. 47(A) of the Land Acquisition Act was violative of Articles 14 and 19(1) (f) of the Constitution and they denied that the remedy of compensation was illusory.