http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: PARSHOTTAM JADAVJI JANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/04/1971

BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) MITTER, G.K. HEGDE, K.S. GROVER, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1188            1971 SCR  294  1971 SCC  (1) 843

ACT: Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 5A and 55-Rules framed regulating enquiry under s. 5A-Complied with-Acquisition for Corporation Right to cross examine officers of Corporation.

HEADNOTE: By a notification issued under s. 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act,   1894,   the  State  Government  declared   that   the appellant’s  lands  were needed for the  public  purpose  of construction   of  an  Industrial  Estate  by  the   Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.  The officer on  special duty informed the,appellant that if he had any objection  to the  acquisition  he might file objections on  or  before  a particular  date and, that he or his counsel would be  heard at  the time of filing the objections.  The appellant  filed his   objections  and  prayed  that  the  officers  of   the Corporation  may  be  summoned for  the  purpose  of  cross- examination  to show that the proposed acquisition  was  not for  a public purpose and that there was no need to  acquire his land, and that a personal hearing may be granted to him. The hearing was fixed for a particular date and the date was extended from time to time but the appellant did not  appear on  those dates nor did he apply for any, further  extension of  time.   His  written objection were  considered  by  the officer  and included in his report to the Government  under s. 5A. On the question whether the report was vitiated because  the officer  had not granted an opportunity to the appellant  to cross-examine the officers of the Corporation, HELD:The    question    whether   the    inquiry    was administrative  or quasi-judicial did not arise.  Rules  had been  framed  under  s. 55 of the Act for  the  guidance  of officers dealing with objections under s. 5A, and the  rules had  been complied with in the present case.  The  appellant was  given an opportunity to be heard personally but he  did not  choose to avail himself of that opportunity.  He  could not, under the rules, claim to cross-examine officers of the Corporation when they had not given any evidence before  the officer  on  special duty and there was no  principle  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

entitled the, appellant to claim such right. [297H; 298A-B] Gandalal v. State, (1963) Guj.  L.R. 326, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1990  of 1970. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated July ’31, 1970  of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.  464 of 1970. P.   M. Raval and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. B.   D. Sharma, for the respondents Nos.  1 and 2. B.   Sen and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No. 3. 295 5 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, C. J.-This appeal, by certificate granted by the High Court  of Gujarat under Art. 132 and Article 133 (1) (c)  of the Constitution of India, is directed against its  judgment and order dismissing the present appellant’s petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution. The  appellant  is the owner of Survey Nos.  219/1  and  121 situated  on the outskirts of Mahuva in Bhavnagar  District. By notification dated April 25, 1969, issued under Section 4 of  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894,  the  State  Government declared that the above-mentioned lands were needed for  the public  purpose of construction of an Industrial  Estate  by the  Gujarat  Industrial  Development  Corporation  or  were likely  to  be needed for that purpose.  On May  3,  1969  a notice  was  issued  to the appellant by  S.  0.  Collector, Officer  on  Special Duty, Land Acquisition,  informing  the appellant that if he had any objection to the acquisition of the lands, he might file objections on or before August  16, 1969.   He was further informed that the Officer  will  hear him  or  his Counsel at the time of filing  the  objections. The appellant filed his objections.  He took various points, but we are only concerned with one.  He pointed out that the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has come out with ambitious  projects for the establishment of the  Industrial estate  though,  in fact, the land already acquired  by  the Corporation   is  in  excess  of  the  requirement  of   the Corporation.    I  say  that  the  corporation  is  not   in possession  of such material as would establish  genuineness for the establishment of an industrial estate of Mahuva.  1, therefore,  claim  that the responsible  officer  should  be cross-examined  by  me for the purpose of showing  that  the proposed  acquisition  is not for public  purpose  and  that there  is no need to acquire the present lands.   The  other suitable  lands  are available and the Corporation  has  not availed  of  the same and that the acquisition needs  to  be dropped.  I say that the contiguous lands to the lands under the  first notification are available and it would  be  more suitable  than the present land. 1, therefore,  submit  that the  proposed acquisition is mala fide inasmuch as my  lands are preferred to the other land owners available immediately near the lands required under the first notification.               He accordingly prayed               "(a) That the officers of the said Corporation               which have sought the acquisition and/or  such               Officer   name hereafter be summoned  for  the               purpose of cross-examination.               (b)   That personal hearing be granted." 296 It  appears that hearing was fixed for September  18,  1969;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

this date was extended from time to time, till November  18, 1969.   The appellant did not appear on these dates nor  did he  apply for any extension of time.  His written  objection dated  August 12/18, 1969 and dated September 18, 1969  were considered  and included in the report, under Section 5A  to the Government. Three  points were pressed by the appellant before the  High Court.   The  principal point that  the  Gujarat  Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1962 was beyond the legislative competence  of the State legislature no longer  survives  as this  Court  has held this Act to be valid in  the  case  of Ramtanu  C.  H. Society v. State of  Maharashtra  (1).   The second  ground  pressed before the High Court was  that  the establishment of Industrial Area by the Corporation was  not a  public  purpose but a private purpose.  In our  view  the High  was right in holding that this was a  public  purpose. The  third ground raised before the High Court was  strongly pressed  before  us.  According to the learned  Counsel  the report  under  Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition  Act  was vitiated   because   the  Collector  had  not   granted   an opportunity  to the appellant to cross-examine the  officers of  the  Corporation  for the purpose of  showing  that  the purpose  for  which the Corporation sought  to  acquire  the lands  was  not a public purpose and there was  no  need  to acquire,  the appellant’s land.  The High Court  relying  on its earlier decision in Gandalal v. State(2) held that  "the inquiry under Section 5A(2) is an administrative inquiry and objector  is not entitled to cross-examine any  officers  or members of the acquiring body." Under  Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act certain  rules have been made for the guidance of officers in dealing  with objections lodged under Section 5-A of the Act.  These rules are as follows :               "   Whenever any notification under Section  4               of   the  Act  has  been  published  but   the               provisions of Section 17 have not been applied               and the Collector has under, the provision  of               Section  4(1)  issued notice to  the  parties,               interested  ;  and on or before the  last  day               fixed  by  the Collector in those  notices  in               this  behalf  any objection  is  lodged  under               section  5-A(2), firstly, the Collector  shall               record  the  objection  in  his   proceedings,               secondly, the Collector shall consider whether               the objection is admissible according to these               rules.               (1) A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1771.    (2)  (1963) 4               Gujarat Law Reporter 326               297               To  be  admissible (a) an  objection  must  be               presented in writing by a party interested  in               the notified land and must be presented within               thirty  days after the date of publication  of               the  notification  under Section 4  or  within               such period as may be fixed by the  Collector;               (b) it must allege some specific  objections,               such as these ;               (i)   the notified purpose is not genuinely or               properly a public purpose ;               (ii)  the  land notified is not  suitable  for               the purpose for which it is notified;               (iii)the land is not so well suited as  other               land;               (iv)  the area proposed is excessive;               (v)   the  objector’s land has  been  selected

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

             maliciously or vexatiously;               (vi)  the  acquisition will destroy or  impair               the   amenity   of  historical   or   artistic               monuments  and places of public  resort;  will               take  away important public rights of  way  or               other conveniences or will desecrate religious               buildings, graveyard and the like.               3.After  admitting an objection and  after               having  ,given the objector an opportunity  of               being  heard either in person or  by  pleader,               the  Collector  shall  decide  whether  it  is               desirable   to   hear  oral   or   documentary               evidence, which under Section 14 or Section 40               of  the  Act, he has power to  call  for.   If               evidence tendered by the objector is admitted,               the  Collector  shall also  afford  the  other               party an opportunity of rebutting it by  other               evidence or of cross examining the witnesses :               If he admits evidence, he will fix a time  and               place of hearing it-, and will hear and record               it in, his proceedings.               4.Agents, other than pleaders, will not be               allowed   to  appear  on  behalf  of   persons               interested in any enquiry under Section 5-A of               the Act.               5.After completing the record of evidence,               the  Collector  shall submit  his  report  and               recommendations as to each objection,  whether               inadmissible  or admissible for the orders  of               Government under Section 5A(2) of the Act." It seems to us that the rules have been complied with.   The appellant  was given an opportunity to be heard  personally. He  ,chose  not to avail himself of that  opportunity.   The appellant 298 cannot under these rules claim to cross-examine officers  of the  Corporation,  and in our opinion the prayer  to  cross- examine  officers  was rightly rejected.  Indeed  it  was  a strange  request.  The officers had not given  any  evidence before  the Collector and were unable to see what  principle entitles the appellant to claim this right.  When rules have been  framed regulating the enquiry under Section 5A of  the Land  Acquisition  Act,  it is  not  necessary  to  consider whether the enquiry is administrative or quasi-judicial  and whether  rules of natural justice have been  complied  with, and accordingly we say nothing on this point. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. V.P.S.                          Appeal dismissed- 299