DOSABHAI RATANSHA KERAVALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions challenge the validity of notification dated 1st September 1964 issued by the State Government under sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in respect of certain lands belonging to the petitioners. The facts are rather material and may be briefly stated as follows :- The petitioners are owners of different pieces of land forming one compact block situate in village Vastrapur on the outskirts of Ahmedabad City. The third respondent society is co-operative housing society formed with the object of enabling its members to construct houses and registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 1925 now deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 The petitioners lands being well situated the third respondent society moved the State Government to acquire the petitioners lands for construction of houses by its members and the State Government accordingly issued a notification dated 19th June 1961 under sec. 4 stating inter alia that the petitioners lands were likely to be needed for a public purpose namely for construction of houses for Manek Baug Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. Within thirty days of the issue of this notification the petitioners filed their objections against the proposed acquisition of their lands and the Collector after holding an inquiry made his report to the State Government under sec. 5A sub-sec. (2). The State Government after considering the report issued a notification dated 5th January 1963 under sec. 6 which in so far as is material was in the following terms :-

(2.) There are four main grounds on which the validity of the notification dated 1st September 1964 is challenged on behalf of the petitioners and they are :-

(3.) Re :- Ground (A) :- This ground depends on the true construction of secs. 4 5 and 6 of the Act and on the connection between these provisions. It is evident from the scheme of the Act that the proceedings for acquisition begin with a notification under sec. 4(1). That section authorises the appropriate Government to notify that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. There are two features of this notification which require to be noticed. The first is that this notification proceeds merely upon a prima facie opinion which has not yet ripened into satisfaction of the appropriate Government that land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose and secondly it is not necessary that the land needed should be particularized in this notification :- it is sufficient if the locality in which the land is situate is mentioned. The reason is that the notification under sec. 4(1) is an introductory measure of an explanatory character. The purpose of the notification under sec. 4(1) is as observed by the Supreme Court in Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay A.I.R. (1960) S.C. 1203 to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out which particular land in the locality specified in the notification is adapted for the purpose for which acquisition is sought to be made whether such purpose is a public purpose or a purpose of a company and if so whether land is needed for a public purpose or a company. The notification under sec. 4(1) is also designed to give opportunity to persons owning lands in that locality to make objections under sec. 5A. The objections may be directed towards showing that the purpose is not a public purpose or a purpose of the company or that the land is not suited for the purpose or that there is other suitable land available or that the land is not needed for the purpose and so on. The objections are considered by the Collector and after considering the objections he makes a report containing his recommendations to the appropriate Government. On receipt of the report the appropriate Government has to give a decision on all the objections at one stage and after the objections are decided the appropriate Government has to make up its mind and be satisfied once for all what particular land out of the locality it wishes to acquire whether the purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired is a public purpose or a purpose of a company and whether the land is needed for such public purpose or company. When the appropriate Government is so satisfied it makes a declaration under sec. 6 that the land is needed for a public purpose or a company. What was a mere proposal under sec. 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition under the Act. There is thus an intimate and integral connection between secs. 4 5 and 6. As soon as the appropriate Government makes up its mind and is satisfied after carrying out preliminary investigation as envisaged in sec. 4(2) and considering the objections of persons interested that a particular identifiable land is needed for a public purpose or a company and makes a declaration to that effect under sec. 6 the purpose of the notification under sec. 4 is carried out and fulfilled. The process initiated by the notification under sec. 4 is complete on the issue of sec. 6 notification and the notification under sec. 4 having served its purpose is exhausted. Thereafter what remains in the field is the notification under sec. 6 which contains the firm and definite declaration of the appropriate Government that a particular identifiable land is needed for a public purpose or a company.