J. B. MEHTA, J. M. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the owners of Survey No. 205/1 of Paldi situate near Hirabaug within the municipal limits of the third respondent Corporation and admeasuring 4598 square yards. They had purchased this plot by four different sale deeds all dated October 1 1957with the object of constructing thereon bungalows for themselves. Soon after the purchase petitioner No. 1 applied for permission for N. A. use and by an order dated March 22 1958 the City Deputy Collector Ahmedabad granted that permission. Thereafter the first petitioner submitted building plans to the third respondent Corporation but the estate and City Improvement Officer of the third respondent Corporation by his letter dated May 28 1958 declined to give sanction on the ground that the land in question was being acquired. Since nothing appeared to have been done for about two years the petitioners through their advocate wrote to the third respondent on July 26 1960 enquiring as to why no intimation of any purposed acquisition was yet communicated to them and again asked the Corporation to sanction the plans. The Municipal Corporation however did not write to the petitioners whether it was going to sanction or not the said building plans and thereupon the petitioners again wrote on November 2 1960 asking for a decision in writing. On November 29 1960 the Town Development Officer of the third respondent Corporation informed the first petitioner that the application for sanction of the plans was rejected as the land was being acquired for a scheme of the Corporation for slum clearance and re-housing and also informed the first petitioner that a notification under the Land Acquisition Act was already issued. This communication to the petitioners by surprise as the Additional Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated November 91960 had informed the petitioners that the land was proposed to be acquired for residential buildings for a society which called itself by the name of Mahatma Gandhikunj Co-operative Housing Society and had enquired from the petitioners if they required the land for their personal use. On November 30 1960 the petitioners had written to the Land Acquisition Officer protesting against the proposed acquisition for the society and had informed him that they needed the land for constructing bungalows for themselves. Since the petitioners had thus received two letters one from the Corporation and the other from the Land Acquisition Officer each mentioning a different purpose for the proposed acquisition the petitioners enquired of their vendors whether any orders had been issued in respect of the land and thereupon the petitioners vendors informed them that they had received a notice on December 8 1960 under sec. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and an intimation that possession of the land would be taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on December 13 1960 Though the notice was served on the vendors on December 8 1960 no such notice was served on the petitioners although their names were in fact set out in that notice. On December 10 1960the father of respondents 3 and 4 and their advocate saw the second respondent and told him that though possession was proposed to be taken on December 13 1960 no notice under section 9 was served upon them. According to the petitioners on an enquiry they found that on December 19 1957 a notification under sec. 4 (1) read with sec. 17 (4) Exhibit was issued to acquire 4231 square yards out of the said lands for the purpose of slum clearance housing and roads and another notification dated August 5 1958 under section 6 of the Act Exhibit H to the petition was issued in respect of the said 4231 squares yards out of the said lands. On February 21 1959 another notification was issued under sec. 4 proposing to acquire 363 square yards out of the remaining lands for the same purpose.

( 2 ) THE petitioners have challenged these two notifications copies whereof are Exhibits a and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document