Civil Appeal No 2720 of 1972
From the Judgment and order dated 2930 8 72 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appeal No 315 of 1971
TU Mehta and MN Goswami for the Appellant
Vimal Dave MN Shroff and KMM Khan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is an Appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the Appellant herein
The Appeal has been filed on a certificate of fitness granted by the Gujarat High Court under Article 1331c of the Constitution
The main challenge in the writ petition was to the vires of sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act 1894
That challenge no longer survives in view of the validity of the sections having been upheld by this Court in Manubhai Jehtalal Patel and Anr
vs State of Gujarat and others The lands in question are situated at village Bhairav Taluka Kamrege District Surat Gujarat
The said lands are situated on the bank of the river Tapti which is known for its frequent floods and the lands are covered in Survey No 2
The said lands admeasure 1 acre and 39 gunthas
We propose to refer to the said lands in the aggregate as the said land
The said land is also known as the Maksheshwar Mahadev Land
The Appellant claims to be the occupant and owner of the entire land comprising in Survey No 2 which includes the said land
It may be mentioned that the claim of the Appellant to be the owner and 779 Occupier of the said land is based on his being the senior member of his family but we are not concerned with that question as we propose to proceed on the footing that he is in actual occupation of the said land
The preliminary notification declaring the intention to acquire the said land was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and published in the Government Gazette of the State of Gujarat on April 30 1970
It was notified that the proposed acquisition was for a public purpose namely for extension of the village site of the village Bhairav
It is common ground that the extension of the village site was required for the purpose of housing 12 families who had been rendered homeless because of floods in Tapti river
An individual notice under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the Appellant on May 2 1970
The Appellant filed his objections against the proposed acquisition on May 12 1970 and filed additional objections on June 20 1970 and July 6 1970 respectively
After consideration and rejection of the said objections the notification for acquisition of the lands under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on December 8 1970
Notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on January 8 1971
The said acquisition was challenged by the Appellant in the writ petition on various grounds
The main ground on which the said acquisition was challenged in the writ petition was that the provisions of sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act were ultra vires the Constitution of India
That challenge as we have already pointed out has been finally negatived by this Court
In view of this Mr Mehta fairly conceded that the vires of sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act could no longer be called in question before us
It was however pointed out by him that the said notification was also challenged on some other grounds
It was contended by Mr Mehta that under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 it must be established that the lands in the existing village site are insufficient for the extension of the village site before any acquisition can be resorted to
It was submitted by Mr Mehta that before the said land could be acquired for the afforested public purpose the revenue authorities should have satisfied themselves that there were no unoccupied lands in the village which were suitable appropriate and available for the extension of the village site or abadi and since that has not been done the acquisition could not said to be for a public purpose
Mr Mehta sought support for these submissions from the decision of a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in Chandrabhagabai Undha 780 orao and others vs Commissioner Nagpur Division Nagpur  Ors
1962 Nagpur Law Journal Vol
XLV at p 466
It was held in that case that the provisions of section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code require that the Deputy Commissioner of the District or any other person authorised under law by him must record a finding that the village abadi is insufficient and that there is no other unoccupied land suitable for the purpose of extension of the village abadi before land could be compulsorily acquired for that purpose
The decision as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the land in the abadi must be taken by the Deputy Commissioner
The Land Acquisition officer cannot substitute his opinion for that of the Deputy Commissioner in purporting to comply with the provisions of section 226
Reliance was also placed by Mr Mehta on the decision of a Division Bench Nagpur of the Bombay High Court in Sitaram Maroti vs State of Maharashtra 1963 65 Bombay Law Reporter 241 which is to the same effect as the aforesaid decision and in fact follows it
It was submitted by Mr Mehta that the provisions of section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code were substantially similar to the provisions of section 126 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code which is really the provision applicable to the lands in question before us
We are totally unable to accept the submission of Mr Mehta that the provisions referred to above are in pari materia
Section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code provides as follows 226
1 Where the area reserved for abadi is in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner insufficient he may reserve such further area from the unoccupied land in the village as he may think fit
2 Where unoccupied land for purposes of abadi is not available the State Government may acquire any land for the extension of abadi and the Deputy Commissioner shall dispose of such land on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed
3 The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 shall apply to such acquisition and compensation shall be payable for the acquisition of such land in accordance with the provisions in that Act A perusal of the said section shows that before the State Government 781 acquires any land for extension of abadi the Deputy Commissioner has to give his opinion that the area reserved for abadi in the village in question in insufficient
A reading of sub section 2 of the said section shows that it is only where unoccupied land for the purpose of abadi is not available that the State can acquire any land for extension of abadi
Sub section 3 merely makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act applicable to the procedure for acquisition and for determining the compensation
The provisions of section 126 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 read altogether differently
The said section runs as follows 126
Limits of sites of villages towns and cities how to be fixed
It shall be lawful for the Collector or for a survey officer acting under the general or special orders of the State Government to determine what lands are included within the site of any village town or city and to fix and from time to time to vary the limits of the same respect being had to all subsisting rights of landholders
 A perusal of section 126 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code shows that unlike section 226 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code there is nothing in section 126 which indicates that the Collector or a Survey officer acting under his orders has to first decide to enlarge or vary the site of any village town or city before acquisition is resorted to for enlarging or varying such site under the Act
Section 126 merely deals with the limits of the site of any village town or city and prescribes the procedure for fixing the limits of such sites
There is nothing in the Bombay Land Revenue Code or the Land Acquisition Act which would suggest that before acquisition can be resorted to for enlarging a village site the Collector or a Survey officer or Revenue Authority must decide upon such enlargement
Great emphasis was laid by Mr Mehta on the last part of section 126 which shows that the enlargement of the site has to be made keeping in mind the rights of the landholders
However in our opinion this factor is of no relevance in the present case as there is nothing on record to establish that such rights have not been taken into account
The next submission of Mr Mehta was that the land acquisition authorities have failed to consider what were the other lands available which could have been more conveniently acquired for the public purpose referred to earlier
It was pointed out by him that in the writ petition the Appellant petitioner has alleged that he could have 782 pointed out certain other lands and open spaces where the twelve families rendered homeless by the floods of Tapti river could have been housed
With reference to these allegations the Respondents in their counter affidavit filed before the Gujarat High Court have rightly pointed out that the Appellant had not given any details regarding other more suitable lands available for acquisition and hence it was not open to him to make a grievance on that score
Moreover in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit the Respondents have pointed out that the lands referred to by the Appellant in his petition were not suitable for housing the victims of the floods because they were lowlying lands lands and not suitable for residential purposes
The assessment of suitability of the land proposed to be acquired for the concerned public purpose is primarily for the Land Acquisition officer consider and no good reason has been shown to us which could warrant interference with his decision
Moreover we are satisfied that the Appellant had not even given proper particulars of the other lands which according to him were available for acquisition and were more suitable for acquisition and hence he can make no grievance on the score of proper consideration not having been given to the question of acquiring such lands
It was lastly submitted by Mr Mehta that since several years had passed from the date of the Notification under section 4 the victims of the floods must have been housed and rehabilitated elsewhere and hence the public purpose for which the lands were sought to be acquired does not survive
We are a little surprised at this argument
The delay has taken place on account of the legal proceedings adopted by the Appellant himself and by reason of the interim orders obtained by him
He cannot take advantage of this delay and claim that the public purpose no longer survives
Moreover the public purpose stated in the Notification is the extension of a village site or goathan of the village Bhairav and there is nothing to show that this public purpose has exhausted itself
In fact we presume on account of the increasing population it will be more necessary today that the village site should be extended even then it was the time when the notification was issued
This submission must also fail
The other controversies sought to be raised by the Appellant are factual in nature and we do not consider it necessary to go into the same
In the result the Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
 Section 630 of the empowers the court on the complaint of the Company or any creditor or contributory thereof to punish an officer or employee of such company by levy of fine if such officer or employee wrongfully obtains possession of or having obtained possession wrongfully withholds or knowingly misapplies the property of the company and also order him to deliver up or refund within a stipulated time such property or in default to suffer imprisonment
In these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court the question for consideration was as to the scope and interpretation of this provision
E Allowing the appeals  HELD Section 630 of the plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to use the property of the company during his employment wrongfully retains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment
It is the wrongful withholding of such property meaning the property of the company after termination of the employment which is an offence under section 630l of the Act
785B C There is therefore no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term officer or employee appearing in sub section 1 of section 630 of the Act as meaning only the existing officers and employees and not those whose employment has been terminated
785C D Baldev Krishna Sahi vs Shipping Corporation of India Ltd  Anr  1987 4 SCC 361 followed
H 784 Time granted to respondents till June 30 1988 to vacate the premises subject to the furnishing of usual undertaking
In the event of failure to furnish the undertaking andor vacate the premises within the time stipulated the cases against the respondents to continue and the trial court to proceed with the trial and dispose them of expeditiously but not later than 311088 785G H 786A