Case: State Of Gujarat Vs. Musamiyan Imam Haider Bux Razvi And Anr. Etc. Etc

leave of the Court so as to include a challenge to the validity of the fresh notification under section 6 of the Act. The petitioner in the aforesaid Special Civil Application No. 1100 of 1963 did not amend his application but filed a fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution being Special Civil Application No. 218 of 1968 challenging the fresh notification under section 6 of the Act. Yet another petit ion under Article 226 of the Constitution being Special Civil Application No. 1441 of 1966 was filed in the High Court on November 20, 1966 by respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 1871 of 1970 challenging the validity of the fresh notification dated June 6, 1966 issued under section 5 of the Act. All these petitions were heard together. While the High Court by common judgment dated April 25, 1969 dismissed petition No. 1100 of 1963 as infructuous in view of the fresh notification under section 6 of the Act, it allowed the other three aforesaid petitions following its earlier decision in Special Civil Application Nos. 316, 625 and 811 of 1965 and quashed the fresh notification dated June 6, 1966 issued by the Government of Gujarat under section 6 of the Act holding inter alia that the cancellation of the first section 6 notification would, in any event, tantamount to withdrawal from acquisition and no subsequent notification under section 6 of the Act could, thereafter be issued without a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act. The appellants thereupon applied for and obtained certificate referred to above. It is how these appeals are before us.Although two important points were raised in the aforesaid writ petitions viz. (1) whether the acquisition of land for Co-operative Housing Society is a public purpose and (2) whether the Government could cancel the notification dated April 29, 1963 issued by it under section 6 of t he Act and issue a fresh notification dated April 28, 1966 under the said section of the Act, the first point does not survive and has rightly not been canvassed before us in view of the decisions of this Court in Ratilal Shankerbhai &Ors. v. St ate of Gujarat &Ors.(1) Pandit Jhandu Lal &Ors. v. The State of Punjab(2) and Ram Swarup v. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Aligarh &Ors.(1) In these cases, it has been made clear that ordinarily the Government is the best authority to determine whether the purpose in question is a public purpose or not; it cannot be contended that a housing scheme for a limited number of persons cannot be considered as a public purpose; and the need of a section of the public may be a public purpose.3. The second contention raised on behalf of the contesting respondents that the cancellation of the first section 6 notification amounts to withdrawal from acquisition and no subsequent notification under section 6 of the Act can thereafter be issued without a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act cannot be countenanced in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.(2) w here it was categorically held that when a notification under section 6 of the Act is invalid, the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its place a fresh notification under section 6 and that nothing in section 48 of the A ct precludes the Government from doing so and that the cancellation of the earlier notification is only a recognition of the invalidity of that notification. The following observations made therein are apposite:Counsel for the appellants next submitted that on issuing the notification dated July 18, 1961 (under section 6), 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. There is no substance in this contention. The notification dated July 18, 1961 was invalid. By the issue of this notification, the Government had not effectively exercised its power under section 6. In the circumstances, the Government could well issue the fresh notification under section 6 dated August 14, 1964. 4. No help can be derived by the contesting respondents from the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors.(3) which turned on another point. In that case after the issue of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, a number notifications in respect of different items of land included in the locality specified in the notification under section 4(1) of the Act were issued under section 6. The following observations made in that case are pertinent:- But as we read these sections (viz. sections 4, 5A and 6) 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 that 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....... 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 particularised ........ The sequence of events from a notification of the intention to acquire [section 4(1)] to the declaration under section 6 unmistakably leads one to the reasonable conclusion that when once a declaration under section 6 particularising the area out of the area in the locality specified in the notification under section 4(1) is issued, the remaining non-particularised area stands automatically released. Thus in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal Amartlal Shodans case (supra), the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court cannot be allowed to stand.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]There is no substance in this contention. The notification dated July 18, 1961 was invalid. By the issue of this notification, the Government had not effectively exercised its power under section 6. In the circumstances, the Government could well issue the fresh notification under section 6 dated August 14, 1964No help can be derived by the contesting respondents from the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Ors.(3) which turned on another point. In that case after the issue of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, a number notifications in respect of different items of land included in the locality specified in the notification under section 4(1) of the Act were issued under section 6. The following observations made in that case are pertinent:-But as we read these sections (viz. sections 4, 5A and 6) 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 that 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....... 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 particularised ........ The sequence of events from a notification of the intention to acquire [section 4(1)] to the declaration under section 6 unmistakably leads one to the reasonable conclusion that when once a declaration under section 6 particularising the area out of the area in the locality specified in the notification under section 4(1) is issued, the remaining non-particularised area stands automatically released.Thus in view of the decision of this Court in Girdharilal Amartlal Shodans case (supra), the impugned judgment of the Gujarat High Court cannot be allowed to stand.