( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside notification Annexure-B issued under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and notification Annexure-J issued under S. 6 of the Act being illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioners that they were having a land bearing City survey No. 3057/b admeasuring 83-61-30 sq. mtrs. , and City Survey No. 3055 admeasuring 76-92-39 sq. mtrs. , in Ward No. 4 in Salabatpura Main Road, Surat. A notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued on March 2, 1988 which was published in local newspapers on March 9, 1988 and March 12, 1988 respectively. It was published in Government Gazette on April 14, 1988. The factum of S. 4 notification was notified on the site on April 19, 1988. Objections were invited under S. 5a of the Act. Since the petitioners were of the opinion that the land was not needed for public purpose and even otherwise, alternative lands were available, they submitted objections. They were considered by the Land Acquisition officer and a report was submitted by him to the Government. After considering the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer as also the objections raised by the owners, the Government issued a notification under S. 6 of the Act on april 15, 1989. Since a notification under S. 6 was issued, the petitioners approached this Court by filing this petition which was admitted and ad interim relief was granted. The matter is now called out for final hearing.

( 3 ) MR. D. D. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners raised following three contentions : (1) The notification under S. 6 of the Act was not issued within a period of one year from the publication of notification under S. 4 of the Act and, hence, the proceedings were vitiated; (2) There is either violation of principles of natural or non-application of mind on the part of State Government before issuance of notification under S. 6 and the proceedings were liable to be quashed and set aside; and (3) The power of acquisition was exercised mala fide. Though alternative lands were available, in colourable exercise of power, acquisition proceedings have been initiated affecting poor persons who were occupying the land since many years.

( 4 ) MR. Udhay Bhatt, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. P. G. Desai, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, Surat Municipal corporation, on the other hand, supported the action taken by the authorities. They submitted that the proceedings had been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Notifications under S. 4 as well as under S. 6 were issued within the period stipulated under the Act and action has been taken in bona fide exercise of power after application of mind and after observing principles of natural. There is, therefore, no reason to interfere with the action and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

( 5 ) SO far as the first point, i. e. , gap of one year between notification under s. 4 and S. 6 is concerned, it was submitted that the notification under S. 6 was not issued within a period of one year. The notification under S. 4 was published in Official Gazette on April 14, 1988 and the period of one year would expire on April 14, 1989. Admittedly, a notification under S. 6 was issued on 15th April, 1989, i. e. , beyond one year. In this connection, our attention was invited to a decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Kumar Ghosh v. Sirish Chandra bose , AIR 1994 SC 1254. In that case, notifications under S. 4 were issued in November, 1971, December, 1973 and November, 1981 respectively, but notifications under S. 6 were issued after three years. Considering the said fact, the Supreme Court observed that in respect of those notifications which were published after the stipulated period, "the notifications under S. 4 (1) shall stan