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

In or about the year 1964 or 1965 certain lands situated in the city of Surat were sought to be acquired by the Government of Gujarat for the purposes and the benefit of the employees under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. Several notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894hereinafter referred to as the Act, were issued. Objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed in relation to several of the proposed acquisitions. They were heard by officers especially appointed as Collectors by the State Government in accordance with Section 3(c) and reports were submitted by them to the State Government. After considering the reports, the State Government issued notifications under Section 6 of the Act. Several writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Gujarat challenging the proposed acquisitions and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, on various grounds. The grounds of attack were mostly common but in some of the cases the acquisitions were assailed on some special grounds also. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by a common judgment including the two with which we are concerned in these two appeals. Special Civil Application 1117 of 1966 has given rise to Civil Appeal 1726 of 1968 and Civil Appeal 1406 of 1968 arises out of Special Civil Application 745 of 1966. In this judgment it would be convenient to deal with the two appeals and the point urged by the respective counsel for the appellants separately.Civil Appeal 1726 of 19682. The appellants in this civil appeal claimed to be in occupation of the land sought to be acquired in Ward 7 of Surat city as annual tenants. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on September 17, 1965 for acquiring two parcels of land for constructing a dispensary and staff quarters for the Employees State Insurance Scheme. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on June 10, 1966. The writ petition was filed on August 22, 1966. It is a matter of helpless regret that the appeal remained pending in this Court for about a decade and the completion and implementation of the acquisition has been delayed so long. All possible objections were taken by the appellants in the High Court to assail the acquisition proceeding. Most of them were useless and devoid of any substances even when the matter was pending in the High Court and they have all fallen flat now in view of several decisions of this Court handed down during the last decade. Yet Mr. J. B. Nagarsheth, learned for the appellants picked up and chose to press several points out of those mentioned in the statement of the case. But none of them stood scrutiny even for a while. We propose to briefly state the points urged before us merely to be rejected in a few lines without any elaboration as no useful purpose will be served by repeating all that has been said in the several earlier decisions of this Court.3. The first point urged was with respect to the constitutional validity of Section 4 of the Act. The attack on the section was on the ground that it was confiscatory in nature and it sought to deprive the appellants of their valuable lands thus violating their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1) and 81 of the Constitution. The point did not merit any consideration and we, therefore, did not at all feel the necessity of following the constitutional mandate of Article 144A of the Constitution. It will be sufficient to refer to only two earlier decisions of the Court on this point namely Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab ((1963) 2 SCR 774   : AIR 1963 SC 151   : (1963) 33 Com Cas 745), and Smt. Ratni Devi v. Chief Commissioner, Delhi (AIR 1975 SC 1699   : 4 SCC 467)  . We may also add that, even otherwise on the well settled principles of law, the attack on the constitutional validity of the section was completely devoid of any substance.

Court's reasoning:
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.