BALWANTRAI CHUNILAL BHATT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 19th December 1957 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the urgency clause and also notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 5th of August 1958 issued without complying with the provisions of Section 5-A thereof. The petitioners are owners and occupants of land bearing S. Nos. 217-A and 448 of Rajpur-Hirpur admeasuring 4 acres 23 gunthas and 0 acre 17 gunthas, respectively. The 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad, passed a resolution No. 630 of 1957 dated 20th November. 1957, regarding acquisition of the lands of the petitioners together with other lands for the project of slum clearance, housing and road. Consequent upon the resolution, the then Government of Bombay was moved to take proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') for acquisition of the said survey numbers along with others. Thereafter, the Government of Bombay issued two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. One of the notifications whereby the lands of the petitioners were also sought to be acquired contained clause (3) whereby the urgency of clause was applied. Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued by the Commissioner of Divisions on the 5th of August 1958 in respect of the notification to which the urgency clause had been applied and another on the 21st February 1959 to which urgency clause was not applied. We are only concerned with the two notifications, one under Section 4 to which the urgency clause was applied and the subsequent Section 6 notification which was issued without the inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. Both these notifications are challenged by the petitioners in the petition on various grounds. But at the hearing Mr. A. H. Mehta, the learned advocate for the petitioners, only raised the following points for our consideration:-

(2.) Out of these four points raised for our consideration, contentions raised in points Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have already been set at rest against the land-owners by the decision of this High Court and also the Supreme Court. In (1966) 7 Guj LR 717, Kaniyalal v. State, the Division Bench of this High Court has held that the power conferred on the State Govt., under Section 78 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, is, far from being a limitation on the power of the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, an extension of that power which can be availed of where the conditions specified in Section 78 are fulfilled. Section 78 of the Municipal Corporations Act cannot be read as curtailing the wide power of the State Government under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. Both the powers, one under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and other under Section 78 of the Municipal Corporations Act are concurrent powers and neither excludes the other. The two conditions mentioned in Section 78 are disjunctive conditions and if either of them is satisfied, the machinery of Section 78 can be set in motion. This being the position, point No. 1 raised before us has to be rejected.

(3.) By the same decision, the Division Bench of this High Court, after examining the relevant provisions of law, came to the conclusion that the Commissioners of Divisions Act was a valid piece of legislature and therefore the notification issued by the Commr. Under the said Act was also valid and enforceable. Point No. 2, therefore before us must also be rejected on the authority of that decision.