Case: Bai Malimabu and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others

to the parties interested. There is no such requirement in the said rule. It merely pre-supposes that the Collector has issued notices to the parties interested under Section 4(1). The requirement of the section is giving of a general notice and by two methods (1) by the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette and (2) causing public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The appellants do not contend that there was no compliance with the requirements aforesaid. Proper inquiry was held under Section 5A of and Act and full opportunity was given to the appellants. It was not the requirement of the law to give any further opportunity after a report was made to the State Government. It is the function of the State Government to consider the report of the Collector and proceed further in the matter as they think fit and proper to do.6. The next submission for the appellants was that contribution of only Re. 1 from the Public Exchequer by the State Government for the purposes of acquiring land for the use of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was a colourable exercise of power and did not in effect and substance fulfil the requirement of law as engrafted in Section 6 of the Act. A complete answer is to be found in the majority decision of this Court in Somavantis case (supra) and in the case of Inderjit C. Parekh v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1975 SC 1182 : (1975) 1 SCC 824 ).7. The above were the main points urged for the appellants in this appeal and there are numerous decisions of this Court showing that none of them had any substance. Apart from the cases which we have mentioned above, we may mention a few more and they are : (1) Munshi Singh v. Union of India ((1973) 1 SCR 973 : (1973) 2 SCC 337 ), (2) Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi ((1975) 1 SCR 802 : (1975) 4 SCC 285 ), and (3) Lila Ram v. Union of India ((1976) 1 SCR 341 : (1975) 2 SCC 547 ). It has been reiterated by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Ambalal Haiderbhai (1976 Supp SCR 33 : (1976) 3 SCC 495 ), that whether the inquiry under Section 5A is of an administrative nature or a judicial one, it is plain that principles of natural justice cannot be violated. In the instant case no such principle was violated.8. For the reason stated above, we affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.Civil Appeal 1406 of 19689. Mr. Hardev Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal finding that it was no use beating about the bush on the general and common points argued in the High Court very discreetly and rightly decided to press only two points for our consideration in this appeal. They are :(1) That the land in question in this appeal was a land belonging to a Public Trust used as a burial ground, hence it could not be and ought not to have been acquired for the purpose of constructing a dispensary for the employees of the State Insurance Scheme; and(2) That the report under Section 5A was made by the Special Lands Acquisition Officer who was not an authorised Collector and had not heard objections under Section 5A and, therefore, the declaration made by the State Government under Section 6 of the Act after considering his report was invalid.10. The High Court has considered the statements in the writ petitions and the counters filed on behalf of the Government. It has come to the conclusion that the land was not being used as a burial ground. We find no sufficient ground to induce us to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. According to the counter, the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had visited the locality and found only two old tombs in a corner of the big area of the land which measures about three-fourths of an acre. The said tombs were in a dilapidated condition also. The rest of the land was lying open, dormant, unused and uncared for without there being any enclosure or the like. In some parts of the land only cow-dung cakes were being prepared. Mr. Hardev Singh was not right when he submitted on the basis of this statement in the counter that inquiry under Section 5A was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It could not be clearly ascertained as to when he had visited the locality. His observations were merely used for the purpose of supporting the fact asserted by the respondent that the land was not being used as a burial ground.11. Indisputably the City Survey Officer was appointed a Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. He had heard the objection under Section 5A and submitted his report to the State Government. The case was thereafter transferred by the Collector to the Special Land Acquistion Officer on September 6, 1965 from the City Survey Officer. But nothing effective or substantial appears to have been done by him. The notification under Section 6 was published on April 5, 1966. An erratum was issued by the Government on June 7, 1966, appointing the Special Land Acquisition Officer as the Collector in place of the City Survey Officer with retrospective date. The stand taken on behalf of the appellants before the High Court was just contrary to the one taken before us. We did not find any substance even in the second point urged before us. On examination of the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it is clear that the City Survey Officer had dealt with the objections under Section 5A and made his report to the State Government. There was no infirmity in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on consideration of his report.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The High Court has considered the statements in the writ petitions and the counters filed on behalf of the Government. It has come to the conclusion that the land was not being used as a burial ground. We find no sufficient ground to induce us to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. According to the counter, the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had visited the locality and found only two old tombs in a corner of the big area of the land which measures aboutof an acre. The said tombs were in a dilapidated condition also. The rest of the land was lying open, dormant, unused and uncared for without there being any enclosure or the like. In some parts of the land onlycakes were being prepared. Mr. Hardev Singh was not right when he submitted on the basis of this statement in the counter that inquiry under Section 5A was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It could not be clearly ascertained as to when he had visited the locality. His observations were merely used for the purpose of supporting the fact asserted by the respondent that the land was not being used as a burial ground.The High Court has considered the statements in the writ petitions and the counters filed on behalf of the Government. It has come to the conclusion that the land was not being used as a burial ground. We find no sufficient ground to induce us to take a view different from the one taken by the High Court. According to the counter, the Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had visited the locality and found only two old tombs in a corner of the big area of the land which measures aboutof an acre. The said tombs were in a dilapidated condition also. The rest of the land was lying open, dormant, unused and uncared for without there being any enclosure or the like. In some parts of the land onlys were being prepared. Mr. Hardev Singh was not right when he submitted on the basis of this statement in the counter that inquiry under Section 5A was held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It could not be clearly ascertained as to when he had visited the locality. His observations were merely used for the purpose of supporting the fact asserted by the respondent that the land was not being used as a burial ground.Indisputably the City Survey Officer was appointed a Collector under Section 3(c) of the Act. He had heard the objection under Section 5A and submitted his report to the State Government. The case was thereafter transferred by the Collector to the Special Land Acquistion Officer on September 6, 1965 from the City Survey Officer. But nothing effective or substantial appears to have been done by him. The notification under Section 6 was published on April 5, 1966. An erratum was issued by the Government on June 7, 1966, appointing the Special Land Acquisition Officer as the Collector in place of the City Survey Officer with retrospective date. The stand taken on behalf of the appellants before the High Court was just contrary to the one taken before us. We did not find any substance even in the second point urged before us. On examination of the supplementaryfiled on behalf of the Government, it is clear that the City Survey Officer had dealt with the objections under Section 5A and made his report to the State Government. There was no infirmity in issuing the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on consideration of his report.