JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J. :— The only question that arises in this appeal by special leave is whether the order of acquisition passed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 284J of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, as applicable to Gujarat is invalid and void for non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The Municipal Corporation of the city of Ahmedabad (briefly the Corporation) by its resolution of December 15, 1966, authorised its Commissioner under Section 284I of the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (briefly the Bombay Act) to provide housing accommodation for the poorer classes. In pursuance of this authority of the Corporation the Commissioner passed impugned order of compulsory acquisition on October 9, 1967, under Section 284J of the Bombay Act in respect of 33, 357 sq. yrds. of land of final plots Nos. 11 to 25 of Town Planning Scheme No. V of Dariapur, Kazipur Ward.

3. Out of this area the land belonging to the appellants measures about 1694 sq. yds. it is averred by the appellants that this area is "predominantly a commercial area and is almost fully built upon."

4. The aforesaid order of compulsory acquisition was published in the official gazette of January 25, 1968 and in the local newspapers of February 10/11, 1968. Individual notices were also served on the concerned parties in accordance with law inviting objections from the owners including the appellants which were lodged in due course. These objections were submitted to the Standing Committee by the Commissioner with his suggestions and the Committee by its resolution No. 1942 of January 21, 1969, approved the said order of compulsory acquisition. The State Government thereafter confirmed the said order on January 6,1972.

5. The appellants had requested for a personal hearing with regard to their objections and their grievance is that the same was denied to them. It is comon ground that no personal hearing was given to the appellants with regard to their objections by the Commissioner. Even so, a period of nearly five years was taken in the process of finalising the order.

6. After confirmation of the order of the acquisition by the Government there is a provision for appeal under Schedule B to the Bombay Act. The appellants preferred an appeal to the CityCivil Court at Ahmedabad and amongst several other grounds raised the question of the denial of personal hearing to them. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court did not accede to the contention and by his order of April 10, 1974, held that the principles of natural justice were satisfied in this case inasmuch as they had been given an opportunity to submit their objections to the acquisition.

7. The appellants then took the matter to the High Court of Gujarat under Article 227 of the Constitution where the same grievance as to the denial of personal hearing was reiterated. The High Court by its order of March 31, 1975, refused to interfere with the order holding that Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act was duly complied with. The High Court also held that the City Civil Court Judge was right in rejecting the submission since "no oral hearing was ever claimed in the objection." Hence this appeal, by special leave, which was ordered by this Court to be expedited.

8. From a perusal of the judgment of the City Civil Court as well as that of the High Court we are of opinion that there was no proper appraisal of the real issue in the matter. It appears that both the City Civil Judge and the High Court were only concerned with whether the rules of natural justice were complied with in the matter of acquisition of the land in question. We, think, as will be shown below, that the City Civil Court and the High Court are not right in their approach.

9. We find that there is reference to Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act in the order of the High Court and it is apparently assumed by the High Court that the said section is applicable. All the same t