Case: Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan Vs. F.N. Rana And Others

1. By notification published on September 1, 1960 under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, State of Gujarat, exercising functions entrusted to him under a notification dated July 24, 1959, issued by the President, under Art. 258 (1) of the Constitution, notified that a piece of land Part of Final Plot No. 686, Ellis Bridge Town Planning Scheme, belonging to the appellant was likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. construction of a Telephone Exchange Building in Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad2. Note was thereafter served by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad (who was appointed by the order of the Commissioner to perform the functions of a Collector), upon the appellant under S. 5A of the Act inviting objections to the acquisition of the land. The appellant filed objections to the proposed acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report to the Commissioner, who issued a notification dated January 11, 1961 under S. 6(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, declaring that the land notified under the earlier notification was required for the public purpose specified in Col. 4 of the schedule and that the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, was appointed under cl. (e) of S. 3 to perform the functions of the Collector for all proceedings to be taken in respect of the land and to take order under S. 7 of the Act for acquisition of the land3. The appellant then moved the High Court of Gujarat under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ setting aside the notifications dated September 1, 1960 and January 11, 1961, and the proceedings under S. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894, held in respect of the land of the appellant and the decision of the Commissioner, Boroda Division, and for a writ setting aside the notification dated January 19, 1961, under S. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and for interim relief. This petition was dismissed by the High Court. With certificate of fitness under Arts. 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution granted by the High Court, this appeal ahs been preferred.

Reasoning:
18. In Chanbasappa Shivappa v. Gurupadappa Murigappa, ILR (1958) Mys 48 : (AIR 1958 Mys 184) decided by the Mysore High Court under S. 119 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, which in terms is substantially the same as S. 87 ofthe Bombay Reorganisation Act,1960,and the definition of law as given in S. 2(h) of that Act is in terms identical with the definition given in S. 2(b) ofthe Bombay Reorganisation Act,the operation of a notification issued by the Government of Bombay conferring powers to try election petitions under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901,after the reorganisation of the State of Bombay under the States Reorganisation was in our view, properly upheldThe decision that any particular land is needed for a public purpose is an administrative decision and it is for the purpose of arriving at that decision that the Act requires that certain inquiries be made. It is true that the Collector is required to follow the procedure prescribed and to give an opportunity to the objector of being heard in person or by a pleader. It is, however, open as S. 5A expressly provides to the Collector to make an independent inquiry a, part from the enquiry on the objection submitted. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the inquiry is a judicial or a quasi-judicial inquiry. There was in the present case no delegation of any judicial power vested in the Central GovernmentThe power to hold an inquiry is statutorily vested in the Collector, and the Collector has exercised that power. The Commissioner exercising his authority entrusted to him merely appointed on behalf of the Central Government the Additional Land Acquisition Officer as the Collector and considered the report in pursuance of the functions entrusted to him under the notification issued by the President. In so acting he did not act in any manner inconsistent with the authority conferred, or which could in law be conferred, upon him. The second objection must also fail.