( 1 ) THIS case once again raises the much debated question as to when an inquiry by a statutory body can be said to be a quasi-judicial inquiry as opposed to an administrative inquiry. The question arises in regard to an inquiry under section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and surprisingly enough barring a decision of the High Court of Allahabad there is no authority in which the question appears to have been considered. The decision of the High Court of Allahabad treats the inquiry as a quasi-judicial inquiry but there is hardly any discussion of the reasons leading upto the conclusion and the conclusion seems to rest merely upon the ipse dixit of the Court. With respect we do not agree with the decision of the High Court of Allahabad and take the view that the inquiry is an administrative inquiry and not a quasi-judicial inquiry; but inasmuch as the question is one of considerable importance and consequence and since we have had the advantage of hearing very able arguments on both sides we think it right to give our reasons in some detail.

( 2 ) IT is necessary to set out briefly the facts giving rise to the present litigation in order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged before us. The first petitioner is the owner of P. P. No. 61 in Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Osmanpura Ahmedabad. The first petitioner has four sons and two daughters. The first petitioner wanted to construct four bungalows three for his sons and one for himself and he therefore sub-divided this plot into ten sub-plots so that he could sell off six sub-plots and from the sale proceeds find monies for the construction of bungalows on the remaining four sub-plots. The first petitioner submitted a plan showing the lay out of various sub-plots to the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and the same was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad on 29th October 1959 The first petitioner also obtained permission of the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad for non-agricultural use of the entire plot. This permission was granted by the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad on 6th October 1959. The first petitioner thereafter sold sub-plots Nos. 1 and 2 to the second petitioner by a deed of sale dated 29tb December 1959. Sub-plot No. 3 was sold by the first petitioner to the third petitioner by a deed of sale dated 20th February 1960 and sub-plot No. 9 was also sold by the first petitioner to the fourth and fifth petitioners jointly by a deed of sale executed on the same day. The first petitioner also negotiated for sale of sub-plot No. 4 with one Himatlal Ganpatram and the negotiations were finalised; but before the sale could be completed Himatlal Ganpatram died in a motor accident and the completion of the sale was therefore delayed. The sixth petitioner also agreed to purchase sub-plot No. 5 from the first petitioner for the purpose of constructing a bungalow thereon but before the sale could be completed the Government of Gujarat issued the notification challenged in the present proceedings. This notification was issued by the Government of Gujarat on 14th September 1960 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and it was stated in this notification that whereas it appeared to the Government of Gujarat that P. P. No. 61 was likely to be needed for the construction of houses for the third respondent-Society it was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 that this plot was likely to be needed for the said purpose namely construction of houses for the third respondent-Society. Pubic notice of the substance of this notification was given at convenient places in the locality and individual notices were also given to the petitioners intimating to them that if they had any objections to the acquisition of P. P. No. 61 they should communicate the same in writing to the second respondent. The petitioners accordingly filed their objections pointing out that they themselves wished to construct resid