http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/10/1969

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1188            1969 SCR  (2) 908  1969 SCC  (3) 456  CITATOR INFO :  R          1980 SC 318  (4)

ACT: Commissioners  of  Divisions Act (Bom.  Act 8 of  1958)  ss. 3(3)  3(4)-Validity  of Powers given  to  State  Government- Notice under s. 4 Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) given  by Commissioner  Ahmedabad Division (Bombay)-Notice under s.  6 given by Commissioner Baroda Division (Gujarat)-Validity of, notice  under  s. 6-Provincial  Municipal  Corporation  Act, 1949-Municipality of Ahmedabad retesting State Government to acquire land for memorial to mahatma Gandhi-Commissioner  in acquiring land whether must follow procedure in ss. 77 &  78 of  Act--Municipal purpose and ’public purpose’  Mention  of ’instrumentality’ for out purpose whether  necessary to make notices   under  ss.  4  and  6  of  Land  Acquisition   Act enforceable-Application of mind by Commissioner.

HEADNOTE: The  Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation resolved to  move  the Government  of  Bombay State (then undivided) to  acquire  a pact  of land belonging to the appellants for setting  up  a Samadhi  of Mahatma Gandhi.  The Commissioner  of  Ahmedabad Division  acting  under the Land Acquisition Act,  1894,  as amended by the Commissioners of Division Act, 1958 issued  a notification under s. 4 of the former Act declaring that the land  was  likely  to  be required  for  a  public  purpose. Thereafter  the  State  of Bombay was divided  and  city  of Ahmedabad  became part of the State of Gujarat.  The  notice under  s.  6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect  of  the appellants’  land  was issued by  the  Commissioner,  Baroda Division of the State of Gujarat who by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was the appropriate authority to do so.   The appellants moved a petition in the High  Court  of Gujarat for a writ quashing the proceedings taken under  the Land  Acquisition Act and restraining the  authorities  from enforcing  the  notifications under ss. 4 and  6.  The  High Court  rejected the petition.  With certificate, an  appeal was  filed  in this Court.  The appellants contended  :  (i) that  the  Commissioners of Divisions Act,  1958  was  ultra vires  the  legislature; (ii) that the  Commissioner  Baroda Division was incompetent to issue a notification under s.  6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

without issuing a fresh notification under s. 4; (iii)  that the  notifications were defective because  of  noncompliance with  ss. 77 and 78 of the Provincial Municipal  Corporation Act, 1949 and because the purpose for which the  acquisition was sought to be made was not a municipal purpose; (iv) that the    notifications   were   unenfcteable    because    the "instrumentality"  to carry out the purpose was not set  out in  the  notifications; (v) that the  Commissioner  had  not applied   his  mind  to  the  evidence  when   issuing   the notification under s. 6. HELD  : (i) Because of the decision of this Court  in  Arnod Rodericks   Anr.   the  challenge  to  the  vires   of   the Commissioners  of  Divisions  Act, 1958  on  the  ground  of excessive  delegation of powers of the State Government  and abdication  of the functions of the Legislature, must  fail. [912 6913 A] Arnold Rodricks & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [1966] 3 S.C.R. 885 followed and applied. (ii) The   notification  under  s.  4  was  issued  by   the Commissioner  Ahmedabad Division who was competent to  issue it as an officer of the                             909 State  of Bombay.  The Commissioner of Baroda was  competent to exercise the powers under the Commissioners of  Divisions Act  which continued to remain in force in the new State  of Gujarat in respect of the Land Acquisition Act and he  had on that account power to issue a notification under s. 6  of the Act.  There  was nothing in the Land Acquisition Act  or the  Commissioners of Divisions Act requiring that in  order to  invest  the notification under s. 6 with  validity,  the Commissioner  of  the  State of Gujarat  had  in  the  first instance to issue ’a notification under s. 4. [913 B-E] (iii)     Exercise of power to move the State under s. 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporation Act is not  conditioned by  a prior attempt at purchase by agreement in  the  manner laid  down  in s. 77.  The opening Clause of  s.  78  merely indicates  an alternative and not a condition.  Even  if  no attempt,  is  made  under  s. 77  to  acquire  the  land  by agreement.it  is open to the Commissioner of  the  Municipal Corporation with the approval of the Standing Committee  and subject  to  the other provisions of The Act,  to  move  the Provincial  Government to take steps for the acquisition  of land [914 D-E] The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  did not  refer  to  any  purpose  of  the  Ahmedabad   Municipal Corporation nor was the acquisition for a purpose for  which the  Commissioner  was  required by the  provisions  of  the Provincial  Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 to  acquire  the land.   But  since the land was required for  setting  up  a memorial  to  Mahatma  Gandhi  who  is  held  in   universal veneration in this country, at a place associated with  him, the   purpose  was  a  public  purpose  within  the   normal connotation  of that expression as used in s. 4 of the  Land Acquisition  Act.  That being so it was unnecessary to  rely upon the extended meaning of the expression ’public purpose’ as  provided  by  s.  78(1)  of  the  Provincial   Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. [915 A-D] Whether  the municipal funds if used for the public  purpose of  setting  Lip of a memorial to Mahatma  Gandhi  would  be lawfully  utilised was not a matter within the periphery  of the enquiry in the present appeal. [915 E] (iv) Failure  to  specify the instrumentality  which  is  to execute  the public purpose does not affect the validity  of the notification either under s.   4  or under s. 6  of  the Land Acquisition Act [916 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Ramji  Popathai  v. Jamnadas Shah, (1969)  Guj.   L.R.  164, approved. Vishhnu  Prasad  Ramdas  v  Gohil & Ors.  v.  The  State  of Gujarat, [1970] 2 S.C.R. followed. (v)  On  the facts of the case he was no  justification  for the  argument that the Commissioner Baroda Division did  not apply his mind in issuing the notification under s. 6.  [916 B]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1102  of 1967. LAppeal  from the judgment and order dated July 28, 29,  30. 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil  Application No. 622 of 1961. S.   V.  Gupte,  H.  H. Chatrapati and  B.  Datta,  for  the appellants, N.   S.  Bindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.  1  to 3. B.   Sen and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 4. 910 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellants are owners of "China Baug"  situated on  the  southern  bank of the river  Sabarmati  within  the limits  of  the  Municipal Corporation  of  Ahmedabad.   The Ahmedabad  Municipal Corporation resolved to move the  State Government  to acquire a part of the land of the  appellants for setting, up a Samadlyi of Mahatma Gandhi.  On  September 10,  1959,  the Commissioner.  Ahmedabad  Division,  in  the State  of  Bombay, issued a notification under S. 4  of  the Land Acquisition Act, stating :               "Whereas  it  appears  to  the   Commissioner,               Ahmedabad  Division, that the lands  specified               in the schedule hereto are likely to be needed               for  public purpose viz. for ’The Memorial  of               Rashtrapita Mahatma Gandhi’ :               It is hereby notified under the provisions  of               Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1               of 1894) "that the said lands are likely to be               needed for the purpose specified above".               Enquiry  was  made  under s. 5A  of  the  Land               Acquisition Act and after receiving the report               of  the Collector, the  Commissioner.   Baroda               Division  of  the  State of  Gujarat  (who  by               virtue of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960,               was   the  appropriate  authority)  issued   a               notification   under   S.  6   of   the   Land               Acquisition  Act on August 31, 1961, that  the               lands  were  required for the  public  purpose               specified  in column 4 of the schedule to  the               notification   i.e.   "Memorial   of   Mahatma               Gandhi".               The  appellants moved a petition in  the  High               Court  of  Gujarat  for a  writ  quashing  the               proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act  and               the two notifications dated September 10, 1959               and August 31, 1961 and for a writ restraining               the  Commissioner.  Baroda Division,  and  the               Government  of  the  State  of  Gujarat   from               enforcing  the notifications.  The High  Court               rejected   the  petition.   With   certificate               granted by the High Court under Art. 133(l (c)               of  the Constitution this appeal is  preferred

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             by the appellants.               Counsel for the appellant contended that :               (1)   that the Commissioners of Divisions  Act               8   of   1958   pursuant  to    which   the               Commissioners  of Divisions were  vested  with               authority  to  discharge  statutory  functions               vested  in  the State Commissioner  was  ultra               vires the legislature.               (2)   that  in  any  event  the  Commissioner,               Baroda   Division,   State  of   Gujarat   was               incompetent  to issue the notification  tinder               S.  6  without issuing  a  fresh  notification               under s. 4,                                    911               (3)   that  since  the land was  notified  for               acquisition for the purposes of the  Municipal               Corporation the provisions of ss. 77 and 78 of               the  Provincial  Municipal  Corporations  Act,               1949, should have been complied with.  In  any               event  acquisition of land for "a Memorial  to               Mahatma  Gandhi"  was not  acquisition  for  a               Municipal  purpose and the notifications  were               without the authority of law;               (4)   that the "instrumentality" which was  to               carry out the purpose not having been set  out               in  the  notifications  under ss. 4  &  6  the               notifications were illegal and on that account               unenforceable; and               (5)   that the Commissioner, Baroda  Division,               in issuing the notification under s. 6 did not               apply his mind to the evidence before him  and               on that account the notification was liable to               be struck down.               To  appreciate the two branches of  the  first               contention,  it  is necessary to set  out  the               relevant statutory provisions.  By s. 4 of the               Land  Acquisition  Act,  as  amended  by   the               Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, it was enacted               that  whenever  it appears  to  the  approbate               Government that land in any locality is needed               or  is  likely  to be needed  for  any  public               purpose,  a notification to that effect  shall               be  published in the Official Guette, and  the               Collector  shall  cause public notice  of  the               substance of such notification to be given  at               convenient   places  in  the  said   locality.               Section 6(1),   insofar  as  it  is  relevant,                             provided :               "Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this               Act, when the appropriate Govt. is  satisfied,               after  considering  the report, if  any,  made               under  section 5A, sub-section (2),  that  any               particular  land is needed for a  public  pur-               pose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be               made  to that effect under the signature of  a               Secretary  to  such Govt. or of  some  officer               duly authorized to certify its orders               The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted               the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8 of  1958.               By s. 3 of that Act it was provided :               "(1) For the purposes of constituting  offices               of  Commissioners of divisions and  conferring               powers  and imposing duties  on  Commissioners               and for certain other purposes, the enactments               specified in column 1 of the Schedule to  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             Act shall be amended in the. manner and to the               extent specified in column 2 thereof.               912               (2)   The   Commissioner   of   a    division,               appointed  under  the  law  relating  to  land               revenue as amended by the said Schedule, shall               exercise  the powers and discharge the  duties               conferred  and imposed on the Commissioner  by               any law for the time being in force, including               the enactments referred to in sub-section  (1)               as amended by the said Schedule.               (3)               (4)   The  State  Government  may  confer  and               impose  on the Commissioner powers and  duties               under any other ,enactment for the time  being               in  force  and  for that  purpose  may,  by  a               notification  in the Official Gazette, add  to               or  specify  in  the  Schedule  the  necessary               adaptations   and   modifications   in    that               enactment by way of amendment; and thereupon-               (a)   every  such enactment shall  accordingly               be  amended  and have effect  subject  to  the               adaptations and modifications so made, and               (b)   the Schedule to this Act shall be deemed               to be amended by the inclusion therein of  the               said provision for amending the enactment". The Government of the State of Bombay issued on September 5, 1958  a notification under s. 3(4) of the  Commissioners  of Divisions Act, conferring and imposing on the  Commissioners concerned  the  powers  and  duties  under  the   enactments specified  therein  and  for  that  purpose  added  to   and specified  in the Schedule to that Act  certain  adaptations and  modifications in those enactments by way of  amendment. In  the  Land Acquisition Act, in s. 4(1)  after  the  words "appropriate  Government"  the words "or  the  Commissioner" were   inserted,   and  in  S.  6(1)(a)  after   the   words "appropriate Government" the words "or, as the case may  be, the Commissioner" will be inserted. It is unnecessary to consider the elaborate arguments  which were presented before the High Court that ss. 3(3) and  3(4) of the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8 of 1958  constituted excessive  delegation  of  legislative power  to  the  State Government  resulting in abdication of the functions of  the State Legislature, and were on that account in valid.   This Court has in Arnold Rodricks & Anr. v. State of  Maharashtra & Ors.(1) by majority held that the powers conferred by s. 3 (4)  on the State Governments are not unguided and that  the State  Legislature has by enacting S. 3 (4)  not abdicated its powers in favour a the executive, for it has laid (1)  [1966] 3 S.C.R. 885. 913 down  the  legislative policy and has left it to  the  State Government to reorganise the  administration, consequent  on the setting up of Commissioners Divisions.  The challenge to the  vires of the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8  of  1958 must fail. The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  was issued  by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division,  exercising powers as an officer of the State of Bombay.  But after  the notification was issued, the State of Bombay was reorganized and  the area in which the land is situated was included  in the  new  State  of Gujarat.   The  Commissioner  of  Baroda Division  was  competent to exercise the  powers  under  the Commissioners of Divisions Act which continued to remain  in force  in  the new State of Gujarat in respect of  the  Land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Acquisition  Act  and had on that account power to  issue  a notification  under  s. 6 of the ,  Act.   The  notification under  s.  4  was  issued  by  the  Commissioner,  Ahmedabad Division,  who was competent to issue it in the set-up  then in  existence  and the Commissioner competent to  issue  the notification  under s. 6 had issued that notification.   The authority  of  the Commissioner of the State of  Gujarat  to issue  the  notification under section 6 not being  open  to challenge,  there is nothing in the Land Acquisition Act  or the  Commissioners of Divisions Act, which requires that  to invest  the  notification  under s.  6  with  validity,  the Commissioner  of  the  State of Gujarat  had  in  the  first instance  to issue a notification under s. 4 of the Act  de- claring that the land was needed or was likely to be  needed for any public purpose. Turning  to  the second contention, the  relevant  statutory provisions may first be read.  Section 77 of the  Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, insofar as it is relevant, by sub-s. (1) provides:               "Whenever it is provided by this Act that  the               Commissioner  may  acquire or whenever  it  is               necessary or expedient for any purpose of this               Act  that the Commissioner shall acquire,  any               immovable  property,  such  property  may   be               acquired by the Commissioner on behalf of  the               Corporation  by  agreement on  such  terms  or               prices and at such rates or prices or at rates               or  prices not exceeding such maxima as  shall               be  approved by the Standing Committee  either               generally for any class of cases or  specially               in any particular case."               Section 78(1) provides :               "Whenever  the  Commissioner is  unable  under               section   77  to  acquire  by  agreement   any               immovable    property,                     the               Provincial Government               914               may,  in its discretion, upon the  application               of  the Commissioner, made with the  approval,               of  the Standing Committee and subject to  the               other   provisions   of   this   Act,    order               proceedings  to  be taken, for  acquiring  the               same on behalf of the Corporation, as if  such               property were land needed for a public purpose               within  the  meaning of the  Land  Acquisition               Act, 1894." There  is  nothing in ss. 77(1) & 78(1) which  supports  the contention  that  before  initiation  of  a  proceeding  for acquisition of land,, which it is necessary or expedient for any  purpose  of  the  Municipal Act  to  be  acquired,  the Commissioner of the Municipality must start negotiations for purchase  by private agreement, and if he is unable  to  so, purchase  the  land the State Government may  be  moved  for acquiring the land for the Municipality, and not otherwise. Exercise of power to move the State under S. 78 of the  Pro- vincial  Municipal Corporations Act, to acquire land is  not conditioned  by any such limitation as suggested by  counsel for  the appellant.  The opening clause of S.  78(1)  merely indicates  an alternative and not a condition.  Even  if  no attempt  is  made,  tinder  s. 77 to  acquire  the  land  by agreement,  it is open to the Commissioner of the  Municipal Corporation, with the approval of the Standing Committee and subject  to  the other provisions of the Act,  to  move  the Provincial  Government to take steps for acquisition of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

land.  By statutory provision, it is expressly enacted  that where  the purpose is one for which the Commissioner of  the Municipality  may require the I and under the provisions  of the  Provincial  Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, or  is  a purpose  of  the  Act for which it is  deemed  necessary  or expedient by the Commissioner of the Municipality to acquire the  land,  such  a purpose shall be regarded  as  a  public purpose   within  the  meaning  of  s.  4(1)  of  the   Land Acquisition  Act,  even  if  it does  not  fall  within  the expression "public purpose" as normally understood. The High Court was of the view that setting up of a memorial to  Mahatma  Gandhi falls within cl. (42) of S.  66  of  the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, and therefore  within the competence of the Municipal Corporation.  Section 66(42) authorises  the Corporation, in its discretion,  to  provide from  time to time either wholly or partly, in the  matters, inter alia, of any measure likely to promote public  safety, health,  convenience or instruction. and in the view of  the High  Court  "setting up a Samadhi or memorial of  the  type could  be  fairly regarded as incidental to  the  right  and power  to give public instruction which is a  matter  within the competence of , the Municipal Corporation under cl. (42) of  s,  66’.   It is not necessary for  us  to  express  any opinion on this part of the case, for, we are clearly of the view that the notification                             915 under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act does not refer to any purpose  of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, nor is  the acquisition  for  a purpose for which  the  Commissioner  is required  by  the  provisions of  the  Provincial  Municipal Corporations  Act, 1949, to acquire the land.  The  land  is needed  for  setting up a memorial to Mahatma  Gandhi  at  a place  associated  with him, and we regard, because  of  the universal  veneration in which the memory of Mahatma  Gandhi is  held  in  our country, that the  purpose  was  a  public purpose.   Counsel for the ’appellants has not attempted  to argue that acquisition of land for setting up a memorial  to Mahatma  Gandhi at a place which has some  association  with him is not a public purpose.  He merely argued that  setting up  of  a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi is not  a  purpose  for which  the  Commissioner  is  required  by  the   Provincial Municipal  Corporations Act, 1949, to acquire the land,  nor is  it  a purpose of the Municipality  under  the  Municipal Corporations  Act.   The purpose of  acquisition  being  one which falls within the normal connotation of the  expression "public  purpose"  within the meaning of s. 4  of  the  Land Acquisition Act, it is unnecessary to rely upon the extended meaning of the expression "public purpose" as provided by s. 78(1) of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. It was urged that municipal funds were, contrary to the pro- visions of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,  1949, intended to be utilised for setting up a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi.   But  we are not concerned in the present  case  to determine  whether if the funds are utilised, they  will  be lawfully utilised : that is a matter which is not within the periphery of the inquiry in this appeal.  The land is  being acquired  for a purpose which is a public purpose, and  once that condition is fulfilled no further inquiry need be made, whether  if  the  municipal funds are  to  be  utilised  for setting  up a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi after the  land  is vested in the State after acquisition, the Municipality will be  acting  within  the limits of  its  authority.   We  may observe  that a notification issued under s. 6 is by  sub-s. (3) conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

The   Land  Acquisition  Act  does  not  provide  that   the instrumentality  which is to carry out the purpose  must  be set  out  in the notifications under ss. 4 & 6 of  the  Act. The Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.  800 of 1961.  Chandulal Patel v. The State of Gujarat held  that if  the  public  purpose  for which  land  is  notified  for acquisition  is to be executed through ",In  instrumentality other than the State Government ’," failure to  specifically mention  "the  instrumentality" in the  notifications  rends notification  invalid.  But in Ramji Popatbhai  v.  Jamnadas sha  a  Full  Bench of the High  Court  has  overruled  that earlier (1) (1969) Guj.  L.R. 164. slp.  C.I./70-13 916 judgment.   In  Vishnu Prasad Ramdas Gohil & Others  v.  The State of Gujarat(1) we have held, agreeing with the view  of the  Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court, that  failure  to specify  the instrumentality which is to execute the  public purpose  does  not affect the validity of  the  notification either under S. 4 or under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no substance in the argument that the Commissioner, Baroda  Division,  did  not apply his mind  in  issuing  the notification  under S. 6. The land notified for  acquisition under  s. 4 was 3428 sq. yards 3 sq. ft. out of  Survey  No. 348B,  and 494 sq. yards 5 sq. ft. out. of Survey  No.  349. The  area of the land notified under s. 6 was stated  to  be 3562 sq. yards out of Survey No. 348B and 387 sq. yards  out of  Survey  No. 349.  Even though the area of  land  out  of Survey  No. 348B exceeded the area originally  mentioned  in the notification under s. 4, the Commissioner stated in  the impugned  notification that "the remaining area of the  said lands notified under section 4 is hereby abandoned".  It was urged that there was no "remaining- area" of the land out of Survey  No.  348B which could be abandoned and  the  recital indicated  that the Commissioner did not apply his  mind  to the  relevant materials on which the notification was to  be issued.   It  is,  however, to be noticed  that  the  entire Survey  No. 348B was not notified for acquisition :  only  a part  of  the land was notified for  acquisition  under  the notification  under s. 4. Under that notification  3428  sq. yards 3 sq. ft. were notified, but the notification under S. 6  the  declaration related to 3562 sq.  yards.   Under  the notification  under s. 6 it was recited that  the  remaining area of the land out of Survey No. 348B was declared as  not likely  to be needed for a public purpose.  The use  of  the expression  "the remaining area of the said  lands  notified under section 4...... is hereby abandoned" does not  justify an  inference that the Commissioner did not apply his  mind. It  may  be reasonably inferred that it was intended  to  be conveyed  thereby that a part of the land out of Survey  No. 348B which was not needed for a public purpose was  excluded from the notification. The  appeal  fails and is dismissed.  Having regard  to  the circumstances  of  the case, there will be no  order  as  to costs. G.C.                        Appeal dismissed. (1) C.A. No. 1983 of 1966 decided on Oct. 9 1969. 917