LATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 1479 of 1971
From the Judgment and Order dated 25 4 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in SCA No 27165
GA Shah NS Pande and MN Shroff for the Appellant
PR Mridul Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for Respondent No 1
I N Shroff and H section Parihar for Respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J
This appeal on certificate from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court raises a question as to the validity or otherwise or a fresh notification issued by the Government of Gujarat under section 6 of the d Acquisition Act 1894 consequent upon an earlier notification under section 6 of the Act being discovered to be invalid
The first respondent in this case owned certain land bearing Final Plot No 38 forming part of Town Planning Scheme No III Ellis bridge situate within the city of Ahmedabad
At the request of the second respondent Sri Ayodhya Nagar Co operative Housing Society Ltd registered under the Bombay Co operative Societies Act 1925 now deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Co operative Societies Act 1961 formed with the object of enabling its members to construct houses the State Government on August 3 1960 issued a notification 286 under section 4 stating that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose
This was followed by a notification of the State Government dated August 21 1961 under section 6 of the Act stating that the land was to be acquired at the expense of Sri Ayodhya Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule annexed thereto
The public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule was For construction of houses for Sri Ayodhya Nagar Co operative Housing Society Ltd Ahmedabad
The entire expense of the acquisition was to be borne by the second respondent ie the Co operative Housing Society
The first respondent moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification under section 6 on the ground that the acquisition of the land for a public purpose at the expense of the second respondent was legally invalid
On December 4 1961 the High Court issued an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings
While this writ petition was pending the State Government by its notification dated May 27 1963 cancelled the notification under section 6
on September 10 1964 the State Government issued a fresh notification under section 6 stating that the land was to be acquired at the public expense for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule
The public purpose specified in column 4 in the schedule was For housing scheme undertaken by Sri Ayodhya Nagar Co operative Housing Society Ltd The High Court following its earlier decision in Dosabhai Ratansha Keravala vs State of Gujarat  Ors
struck down the second notification under section 6 dated September 10 1964
It held inter
alia that the first notification under section 6 issued on August 21 1961 being an acquisition for a society at its cost was valid and the Government could have proceeded to complete the acquisition under it but under a false sense of apprehension as to its validity the Government cancelled it on May 27 1963
There was no justification for cancelling the first notification under section 6 and even if the Government wanted to cancel it out of a feeling of apprehension as to its validity the Government need not have taken one year and ten months to do so
2 After the issue of the first notification under section 6 on August 21 1961 the notification dated August 3 1960 under section 4 was exhausted and therefore could not be used to support the second notification issued under section 6 on September 11 1964
3 The cancellation of the first notification under section 6 by the notification dated May 27 1963 did not have the effect of reviving the notification under section 4 so as to make it available for supporting the second notification under section 6
The second notifi 287 cation under section 6 not being supported by any notification under section 4 Was consequently invalid
4 A notification under section 6 in order to be valid must follow within a reasonable time after the issue of a notification under section 4
The notification under section 4 was issued on August 3 1960 and the second notification under s 6 on September 10 1964 and there was thus an interval of about four years and one month between the two notifications
This interval of time could not be regarded as reasonable
Even tested by the yardstick of reasonable time provided by the legislature in the second proviso introduced in section 6 by the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act
1967 namely three years the period of about four years and one month between the two notifications under section 4 and section 6 would be clearly unreasonable
The second notification must therefore be held to be invalid on this ground also
We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was in error m striking down the second notification under section 6 issued on September 10 1964
In Valjibhai
Muljibhai Soneji
vs State of Bombay the Court held that the Government has no power to issue a notification for acquisition of land for a public purpose where the compensation is to be entirely paid by a company
The first notification issued by the Government under section 6 for acquisition of the land for a public purpose at the expense of the second respondent the Co operative Society was therefore invalid
The State Government was there fore justified in issuing the second notification under section 6 after removing the lacuna ie by providing for acquisition of the land for the said public purpose at public expense
In an endeavour to support the judgment counsel for the first respondent advanced a three fold contention
It was urged firstly that successive notifications cannot be issued under section 6 placing reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh  Ors
vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma  Ors
It was pointed out that the Land Acquisition Amendment and Validation Act 1967 had a limited scope and it validated only successive notifications issued under section 6 in respect of different parcels of land but did not validate successive notifications in respect of the same land
Further it was urged that the Act was not retrospective in operation and therefore the validity of the second notification dated September 10 1964 had to be Adjudged with reference to the pre amendment law ie according to the law as declared by this Court in Vishnu Prasad Sharma s case
Secondly it was urged on the strength of the deci 288 sion in Dosabhai Ratansha Karevala s case supra that a notification under section 4 is exhausted when it is followed by declaration under section 6 It was urged that the first notification under section 6 dated August 21 1961 was valid and the High Court was therefore justified in holding that with its cancellation the notification under section 4 lapsed
Thirdly it was urged that there was unreasonable delay in issuing the second notification under section 6 and this by itself was sufficient to invalidate it
In Vishnu Prasad Sharma s case the Court held that sections 4 S A and 6 are integrally connected and present a complete scheme for acquisition and therefore it was not open to the Government to make successive declarations under section 6
Wanchoo J as he then was speaking for himself and Mudholkar J observed It seems to us clear that once a declaration under section 6 is made the notification under section 41 must be exhausted for it has served its purpose
There is nothing in sections 4 5 A and 6 to suggest that section 41 is a kind of reservoir from which the government may from time to time draw out land 
and make declarations with respect to it successively
If that was the intention behind sections 4 S A and 6 we would have found some indication of it in the language used there in But as we read these three sections together we can only find that the scheme is that section 4 specifies the 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 the 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 and the notification under section 41 cannot be further used there after
At the stage of section 4 the land is not particularised but only the locality is mentioned at the stage of section 6 the land in the locality is particularized and thereafter it seems to us that the notification under section 41 having served its purpose exhausts itself
 Sarkar J in a separate but concurring judgment observed My learned brother has said that sections 4 5A and 6 of the Act have to be read together and
so read the conclusion is clear that the Act contemplates only a single declaration under section 6 in respect of a notification under section 4
 289 After rejecting the contention that the Government may have difficulty A in making the plan of its projects complete at a time particularly where the project is large and therefore it is necessary that it should have power to make successive declarations under section 6 he observed I cannot imagine a Government which has vast resources not being able to make a complete plan of its project at a time
Indeed I think when a plan is made it is a complete plan
I should suppose that before the Government starts acquisition proceedings by the issue of a notification under section 4 it has made its plan for otherwise it cannot state in the notification as it has to do that the land is likely to be needed
Even if it had not then completed its plan it would have enough time before the making of a declaration under section 6 to do so
I think therefore that the difficulty Of the Government even if there is one does not lead to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the making of a number of declarations under section 6
 In the present case the question however does not arise as the first notification under section 6 dated August 21 1961 being invalid the Government was not precluded from making a second notification
Due to the invalidity of the notification under section 6 the notification under section 4 still held the field and on its strength another notification under section 6 could be issued
It is therefore not necessary to deal with the effect of the validating Act
The matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Court in Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan  Ors
vs State of Gujarat  Ors
The Court rejected the contention that by cancelling the first notification under section 6 as here the Government must be taken to have withdrawn from the acquisition and consequently could not issue a second notification under section 6
there also the first notification under section 6 was invalid and of no effect as the Government had no power to issue a notification for acquisition for a public purpose where the compensation was to be paid entirely by a company as held by this Court in Sham Behari  Ors
vs State of Madhya Pradesh  Ors
It will be noticed that in Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan s case the facts were identical
On August 3 1960 the Government of Gujarat issued a notification under section 4 in respect of certain land falling in Final Plot No 460 of the Town Planning Scheme No III of Elisbridge in the city of Ahmedabad stating that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose viz for construction of houses for Sri Krishna 290 kunja Government Servants  Co operative Housing Society Ltd On July 18 1961 the State Government issued a notification under section 6 stating that the land was to be acquired for the aforesaid public purpose at the expense of Sri Krishnakunj Government Servants  Co operative Housing Society Ltd
On September 22 1961 the landholder filed a writ petition in the High Court for an order quashing the notification under section 6
During the pendency of the proceedings the Government issued a notification dated April 28 1964 cancelling the aforesaid notification dated July 18 1961
On August 14 1964 the Government issued a fresh notification under section 6 stating that the land notification under section 6 staling that the land was needed to be acquired at the public expense for a public purpose viz for the housing scheme undertaken by Sri Krishnakunj Government Servants  Co operative Housing Society Ltd The contention was that by cancelling the first notification under section 6 the Government must be deemed to have withdrawn from the acquisition and cancelled the notification under section 4 and therefore could not issue the second notification under section 6 without issuing a fresh notification under section 4
It was also urged that the 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
The Court rejected both the contentions observing Having regard to the proviso to  section 6 of the Act a declaration for acquisition of the land for a public purpose could only be made if the compensation to be awarded for it was to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority
The Government had no power to issue a notification for acquisition for a public purpose where the compensation was to be paid 
entirely by a company
The notification dated JULY 18 1961 was therefore invalid and of no effect see Shyam Behari vs State of Madhya Pradesh
The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid notification on this ground
The challenge was justified and the notification was liable to be quashed by the Court
 The State Government realised that the notification was invalid and without waiting for an order of Court
cancelled the notification on April 28 1964
The cancellation was in recognition of the invalidity of the notification
The Government had no intention of withdrawing from the acquisition
Soon after the cancellation the Government issued a fresh notification under section 6 whereas in this case the notifi 291 cation under section 6 is incompetent and invalid the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under section 6
This is what in substance the Government did in this case
The cancellation on April 28 1964 was no more than a recognition of the invalidity of the earlier notification
 The first notification issued under section 6 on August 21 1961 was obviously invalid and of no effect
By the issue of this notification the Government had not effectively exercised its powers under section 6
In the circumstances the Government could well issue a fresh notification under section 6 dated September 10 1964
In State of Gujarat vs Musamiyan Imam Haider Bux Razvi  Anr etc
this Court while reversing the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Dosabhai Ratansha Kerravala supra on which the High Court based its decision has laid down two important principles 1 In view of the decisions of this Court in Pandit Jhandu Lal  Ors
vs The State of Punjab  Ors Ratilal Shankarbhai  Ors
vs State of Gujarat  Ors
and Ram Swarup vs The District Land Acquisition Officer Aligarh  Ors
the acquisition of land for a co operative housing society is a public purpose
The Government is the best Judge to determine whether the purpose in question is a public purpose or not and it cannot be said that a housing scheme for a limited number of persons cannot be construed to be a public purpose inasmuch as the need of a section of the public may be a public purpose
2 When a notification under section 6 is invalid the government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under section 6 and nothing in section 48 of the Act precludes the government from doing so as held by this Court in Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan
The High Court had not the benefit of these decisions when it held that acquisition of land for a co operative housing society was not a public purpose and therefore the first notification dated August 21 1961 issued under section 6 of the Act was valid
The substratum on which the decision of the High Court rests has therefore disappeared
This Court in Musamiyan s case distinguished the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh  Ors
vs Vishnu Prasad Sharma  Ors
supra by quoting the passage referred to above
The decision in Vishnu Prasad Sharma s case is not an authority for the proposition that where a notification under section 6 is found to be invalid it cannot be followed by a fresh notification under section 6
In fact the decision of the High Court 292 runs counter to what it had observed in Dosabhai Ratansha Keravala s case after referring to the decisions of this Court in Vishnu Prasad Sharma s case and Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan s case If the first section 6 notification is invalid that is non est section 4 notification cannot be regarded as exhausted for its purpose is yet unfulfilled its purpose could be fulfilled only by issue of a valid notification under section 6
 There remains the question whether the High Court was right in quashing the second notification under section 6 on the ground of unreasonable delay in its issuance
The respondent had not taken any such ground in the writ petition filed by him
The High Court was therefore not justified in observing that the appellant had not explained the delay by filing any affidavit 
We fail to appreciate that if there was no ground taken there could be no occasion for filing of any such affidavit
Further the delay if any was of the respondent s own making
He had challenged the first notification under section 6 presumably on the ground that the acquisition being for a public purpose could not be made at the expense of the second respondent
The challenge was justified and the State Government therefore withdrew the first notification under section 6 without waiting for an order of the High Court
The cancellation was in recognition of the invalidity of the notification
The Government had no intention of withdrawing from the acquisition
Thereafter the Government issued a fresh notification under section 6 making a declaration for acquisition of the land for a public purpose at public expense
There is nothing in the Act which precludes the Government from issuing a fresh notification under section 6 if the earlier notification is found to be ineffective
The delay of one year and four months between the date of cancellation and the issue of the second notification cannot be regarded to be unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case
In somewhat similar circumstances this Court recently in Gujarat State Transport Corpn
vs Valji Mulji Soneji held the delay of about fifteen years in making the second notification under section 6 not to be unreasonable
We cannot therefore uphold the High Court s decision that the second notification must be struck down on the ground of delay
In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by the first respondent is dismissed
Respondent No 1 shall bear the costs
NKA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The first respondent owned certain Land forming part of a town planning scheme situated within the city limits
At the request of the second respondent a Corporative Housing Society the State Government issued a Notification under section 4 of the Act on August 3 1960 stating that the land was likely to be needed for a public purpose and it was followed by a further notification of the State Government under Section 6 of the Act dated August 21 1961 that the land was to be acquired at the expense of the Cooperative Housing Society for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the Schedule to the notification
The entire expense of the acquisition was to be borne by the second respondent
The first respondent moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notification under section 6 of the Act
During the pendency of the Writ Petition the appellant by a notification dated May 27 1963 cancelled the earlier notification under section 6 and issued a fresh notification
The High Court struck down the second notification dated September 10 1964 issued under section 6 of the Act
In the appeal to this Court on the question of the validity of the 2nd notification dated September 10 1964  HELD i The High Court was in error in striking down the second notification under section 6 of the Act issued on September 10 1964
ii This Court in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji vs State of Bombay has held that the Government has no power to issue a notification for acquisition of land for a public purpose where the compensation is to be entirely paid by a company
287 C D In the instant case the first notification issued by the Government for acquisition of land for a public purpose at the expense of the second respondent the cooperative society was therefore invalid and the Govt
was justified in issuing the second notification under section 6 after removing the lacuna by providing for acquisition of the land for public purpose at public expense
287 D E iii The acquisition of land for cooperative housing society is a public purpose
The Govt
is the best judge to determine whether the purpose in question is a public purpose or not
It cannot be said that a Housing Scheme for a limited number of persons cannot be construed to be a public purpose
When a notification under section 6 of the Act is invalid the Govt
may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under section 6 of the Act 2nd nothing in section 48 of the Act precludes the Government from doing so
291 C E 285 Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan  Ors
vs State of Gujarat Madhya Pradesh  Ors
  Pandit Jhandu Lal  Ors
vs The State of Punjab  Ors  Ratilal Shankarbhai  Ors
vs State of Gujarat  Ors
AIR  Ram Swarup vs The District Land Acquisition Officer Aligarh  Ors  referred to
iv In the instant case tho Respondent had not taken any ground in the Writ Petition with regard to the delay in the issuance of the second notification
The High Court was therefore not justified in observing that the appellant had not explained the delay by filing any affidavit
 If there was no ground taken there could be no occasion for filing of any such affidavit
292 B C v There is nothing in the Act which precludes the Govt
from issuing a fresh notification under section 6 of the Act if the earlier notification is found to be ineffective
The delay of one year and four months between the date of cancellation and the issue of the second notification cannot be regarded to be unreasonable
292 E F Gujarat State Transport Corpn
vs Valji Mulji Soneji