Judgment

SHAH, J.: By notification published on September 1, 1960 under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, State of Gujarat, exercising functions entrusted to him under a notification dated July 24, 1959, issued by the President, under Art. 258 (1) of the Constitution, notified that a piece of land Part of Final Plot No. 686, Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme, belonging to the appellant was likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. construction of a Telephone Exchange Building in Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad.

2. Note was thereafter served by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad (who was appointed by the order of the Commissioner to perform the functions of a Collector), upon the appellant under S. 5A of the Act inviting objections to the acquisition of the land. The appellant filed objections to the proposed acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Commissioner, who issued a notification dated January 11, 1961 under S. 6(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, declaring that the land notified under the earlier notification was required for the public purpose specified in Col. 4 of the schedule and that the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, was appointed under cl. (e) of S. 3 to perform the functions of the Collector for all proceedings to be taken in respect of the land and to take order under S. 7 of the Act for acquisition of the land.

3. The appellant then moved the High Court of Gujarat under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ setting aside the notifications dated September 1, 1960 and January 11, 1961, and the proceedings under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, held in respect of the land of the appellant and the decision of the Commissioner, Boroda Division, and for a writ setting aside the notification dated January 19, 1961, under S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and for interim relief. This petition was dismissed by the High Court. With certificate of fitness under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court, this appeal ahs been preferred.

4. In this appeal counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions -

(1) That the Commissioner had in the events that had happened no power to issue the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, purporting to act upon the notification issued by the President on July 24, 1959, under Art. 258(1) of the Constitution entrusting the functions of the Union Government relating to acquisition of land to the Commissioners of Divisions in the State of Bombay, because those functions could not be performed after the State of Bombay ceased to exist, and the State of Gujarat came into existence, and the consent of the Government of the latter State to the entrustment of functions to its officers had not been obtained and

(2) that the proceeding under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act being quasi-judicial, authority to make a report under that section could not be delegated by the Commissioner, and that the report made by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer could not in any event be considered by the Commissioner.

5. It may be useful to set out certain statutory provisions in the context of the relevant constitutional set up. By the Constitution as amended by the Seventh Constitutional Amendment Act, 1956 legislative power in respect of acquisition and requisitioning of property is vested under entry 42 in the Concurrent List in the Union Parliament and the State Legislatures. But by virtue of Art. 372, the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 relating to compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes continues to remain in force. The Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, authorises the appropriate Government by S. 4(1) to publish the preliminary notification that land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purposes, and upon th