Judgment

P. K. GOSWAMI, J.:- This appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution is from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. The certificate was granted on October 21, 1972, before coming into force of the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972.

2. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, does not press before us the challenge to the validity of Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. We will now, state the facts as will appear from the statement of case filed on behalf of the appellant.

4. A notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (briefly the Act) on June 7, 1966, intending to acquire a total area of 13900 sq. yds. of land including 474 sq. yds. of the appellants land in Ward No. 11 of Surat City included in City Survey Nos. 2365 and 2366. We are informed that only the appellant is raising objection to the acquisition and the plan has not yet been implemented on account of the pending litigation. The appellant submitted his objections under Section 5A (1) of the Act to the Collector who gave him a hearing under sub-section (2) of Section 5A. In due course the Collector submitted his report to the State Government and after consideration of the same the Government issued a declaration under Section 6 on January 13, 1969, that the land was required for the public purpose noted in the preliminary notification under Section 4.

5. The appellant in para 3 of the statement of case while referring to the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act averred as follows:-

"It was stated in the said notice that the suit lands were likely to be needed for fire station, workshop and parking purpose of the Surat Municipality as indicated in Government Notification dated 7-6-1966."

In para 4 of the said statement it was averred "that the appellant contested the notice by raising an objection that the respondent No. 3 - the Corporation - was not in need of the suit land for the purpose of the fire station, etc." After the declaration under Section 6 of the act, as stated earlier, a notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the appellant but he did not submit any claims with regard to compensation under that section. On September 22, 1970, the appellant filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the aforesaid notifications under the Act. The High Court by its order of November 30, 1970, rejected the petition. The High Court, however, by its order of October 21, 1972, granted certificate under Article 133 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution on the question of vires of Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

6. Mr. Dave confines his submissions before us only to the following points; which we will deal with seriatim:

First, that in spite of the appellants request for furnishing a copy of the report under Section 5A the Collector did not grant him a copy. He complains that there was no proper and adequate hearing under Section 5A (2) of the Act. According to the learned counsel a proper hearing would include furnishing of a copy of the report under Section 5A (2). We are unable to accept this submission. Although, ordinarily, there should be no difficulty in furnishing a copy of the report under Section 5A to an objector, when he asks for the same, it is not a correct proposition that hearing under Section 5A is invalid because of failure to furnish a copy of the report at the conclusion of the hearing under said section. Unless there were weighty reasons, a report in a public enquiry like this, should be available to the persons who take part in the enquiry. But failure to furnish a copy of the report of such an enquiry like this, should be available to the persons who take part in the enquiry. But failure to furnish a copy of the report of such an enquiry cannot vitiate the enquiry if it is otherwise not open to any valid objection. Apart from this solitary ground, our attention has no