1976 Supreme(SC) 175

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
State of Gujarat and another, Appellants
Versus
Musamigan Imam Haider Bux Razvi and another, Respondents.
(1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1870 and 1871 of 1970 and 1445 of 1971.
(2) Civil Appeals Nos. 967 to 969 of 1971.
State of Gujarat and another, Appellants
Versus
Ambalal Haiderbhai etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1870 and 1871 of 1970 and 1445 of 1971 and 967 to 969 of 1971,
D/- 14-4-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate in C. A. 1870, Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate, in C. A. 1597, (Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocate, with them), for Appellants in all the Appeals; Mr. I. N. Shroff, advocate, for Respondents 1-9 in C. A. 1597, Respondents 1 and 2 in 967, and Respondent 1 in C. As. 968-969; Mr. D. V. Patel, Sr. Advocate in C. A. 2291, Mr. S. T. Desai, Sr. Advocate in C. A. 1871, Mr. R. P. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate in C. A. 967 (Mr. P. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jetley, Advocates with them), for Respondent 3 in C. A. 967, Respondent 2 in C. As. 968, 969, 1445, 1870, Respondent 3 in C. A. 2291 and Respondent 4 in C. A. 1871/70; M/s. S. M. Jain, S. K. Jain and Inder Makwana, Advocates, for Respondent 1 in C. As. 1871, 2291 and 1445; Mr. Gobind Das, Sr. Advocate, (Mrs. S. Bhandare, M. S. Narasimhan, M/s. A. K. Sharma and A. K. Mathur, Advocates with him), for Respondent 10 in C. A. 1597; Mr. P. K. Pillai, Advocate, for Respondents 2 and 3 in C. A. 1871.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Land Acquisition – Claim of compensation - Whether Government could cancel the notification dated April issued by it under Section 6 of Act and issue a fresh notification dated April under said section of the Act - Whether purpose in question is a public purpose or not; it cannot be contended that a housing scheme for a limited number of persons cannot be considered as a public purpose and the need of a section of the public may be a public purpose - Whether land is adapted for the purpose for which it has to be acquired followed by objections and making up of its mind by Government what particular land out of that locality it needs - Facts giving rise to these appeals are On May Government of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 declaring that certain pieces of land in village City, District specified in Schedule thereto were likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. for construction of houses for members of Co-operative Housing Society Limited - On June respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal owners of some pieces of the aforesaid land filed Special Civil Application in the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid notification dated May made under Section 4 of Act and seeking to restrain the Government from proceeding further with the acquisition proceedings contending inter alia that the land could not be acquired for the benefit of the Company in which the public was not directly interested - Interim injunction sought by the petitioner in that petition having been refused, the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer appellant No. 2 in these appeals proceeded to hold the requisite enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and submitted report to the Government on a consideration whereof the latter issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act on April 29, 1963 - Notification inter alia stated that the lands mentioned in the Schedule thereto were needed to be acquired at the public expense for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the Schedule to the notification viz., the scheme undertaken by Co-operative Housing Society Limited with the sanction of the Government. Notices under Section 9 (1) of the Act were served and the Special Land Acquisition Officer after holding the requisite enquiry made an award on December determining the amount of compensation payable by Government to the owners of the land - On demand being made for possession of land, respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal who is the owner of some pieces of land sought to be acquired brought another Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the aforesaid notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of Act and on his application High Court passed an interim order restraining the Government from taking possession of the lands – Held, Second contention raised on behalf of the contesting respondents that the cancellation of the first Section 6 notification amounts to withdrawal from acquisition and no subsequent notification under Sec. 6 of the Act can thereafter be issued without a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of this Court where it was categorically held that when a notification under Section 6 of the Act is invalid Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its place a fresh notification under Section 6 and that nothing in Sec. 48 of the Act precludes the Government from doing so and that the cancellation of the earlier notification is only a recognition of the invalidity of that notification - Counsel for appellants next submitted that on issuing the notification dated July power of the State Government to issue a notification under Section 6 was exhausted and the Government could not issue a fresh notification under Section 6 - There is no substance in this contention - Notification dated July was invalid - By the issue of this notification Government had not effectively exercised its power under Section 6 - In the circumstances Government could well issue the fresh notification under Section 6 dated August - Court read these three sections together we can only find that the scheme is that Section 4 specifies locality then there may be survey and drawing of maps of the land and the consideration whether the land is adapted for the purpose for which it has to be acquired followed by objections and making up of its mind by Government what particular land out of that locality it needs - This is followed by a declaration under Section 6 specifying the particular land needed and that in our opinion completes the process - At the stage of Section 4 the land is not particularized but only the locality is mentioned at the stage of Section 6 the land in the locality is particularized - Sequence of events from a notification of intention to acquire to the declaration under Section 6 unmistakably leads one to the reasonable conclusion that when once a declaration under Section 6 particularizing the area out of the area in the locality specified in the notification under Section 4 (1) is issued remaining non-particularized area stands automatically released - Appeals allowed