http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE OF GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUSAMIYAN IMAM HAIDER BUX RAZVI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/04/1976

BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT BENCH: SINGH, JASWANT RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR  594            1976 SCR   28  1976 SCC  (3) 536  CITATOR INFO :  C          1980 SC 367  (11)  F          1988 SC1615  (7)

ACT:      Land Acquisition  Acts. 1894-Secs.  4, 6 and 48-Whether cancelling Sec.  6 notification  amounts to  withdrawal from acquisition-On cancellation  of Sec.  6 notification whether Sec. 4  notification gets  exhausted-Whether second  Sec.  6 notification can  be issued-Acquisition  for  a  cooperative society if for a public purpose.

HEADNOTE:      The Government  of Gujarat  issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The validity of the said  notification was  challenged by  the owners of the land. The  Government  later  issued  a  notification  under section 6  of the Land Acquisition Act after holding enquiry under section 5A. The owners of the land challenged the said notification  under   section  6   by  filing  another  Writ Petition.  Thereafter   the  award  was  made  by  the  Land Acquisition Officer.  The Government sanctioned a sum of Re. 1/- towards cost of acquisition. The acquisition was for the purpose of  a Cooperative  Housing Society.  Later  on,  the Government  passed  a  resolution  in  supersession  of  the earlier resolution  and sanctioned a sum of Rs. 500/- toward cost of  acquisition. The  Government considered  section  6 notification to  be illegal  and invalid  and cancelled  the same and  issued a  fresh notification  under section  6  in respect of  the same  land. The  owner of  the land  filed a further Writ  Petition challenging the notification by which the earlier section 6 notification was cancelled and a fresh section 6  notification was issued. The High Court dismissed the Writ  Petition against  the first section 6 notification as infructuous.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  other  Writ Petition against  the  second  section  6  notification  and quashed it  on the ground that the cancellation of the first section 6  notification would  in any  event, tantamount  to withdrawal from  acquisition and  secondly since  section  4 notification  was   exhausted  by   the  first   section   6 notification no  subsequent notification  under section 6 of the Act could thereafter be issued.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

    Allowing the appeal by certificate ^      HELD: 1.  Acquisition of  land for  Cooperative Housing Society is  for public purpose as laid down by this Court in Ratilal Shankarbhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat A.I.R. 1970 SC 984. [31-C]      2. The  contention 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 Girdhari Lal  Amratlal Shodan  and Ors.  v. State of Gujarat reported in  [1966] 3  SCR 437,  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 Act precludes the  Government from doing so. The cancellation of the earlier  notification  is  only  a  recognition  of  the invalidity of  that notification  and  does  not  amount  to withdrawal from acquisition. [31 C-D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeals Nos. 1870 and 1871 of 1970 and 1445 of 1971.      Appeal from  the Judgment  and Order dated 25-4-1969 of the Gujarat  High Court in Special Civil Appeals Nos. 218/68 and 1441/66 respectively and 29      D. V. Patel and M. N. Shroff, for the appellants in all the appeals.      S. T.  Desai (In  CA 1871), P. H. Parekh & Manju Jetley for Respondents.      S. M. Jain, S. K. Jain and Inder Makwana for Respondent 1 in CAs. 1871 and 1445.      P. K. Pillai for Respondent 2 and 3 in CA 1871.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      JASWANT SINGH,  J. These  three appeals  Nos.  1870  of 1970, 1871  of 1970  and 1445 of 1971 by certificate granted by the  High Court  of Gujarat  at Ahmedabad  under  Article 133(1)(b) &  (c) of  the Constitution  of India  against its common judgment  and order  dated April  25, 1969  shall  be disposed of by this judgment.      The facts  giving rise to these appeals are: On May 20, 1961, the  Government of Gujarat issued a notification under section 4  of the  Land Acquisition  Act  1894  (hereinafter referred to  as ’the  Act’) declaring that certain pieces of land in  village Vasana,  Taluka  City,  District  Ahmedabad specified in Schedule thereto were likely to be needed for a public purpose  viz. for  construction of houses for members of  Yogeshwarnagar  Co-operative  Housing  Society  Limited, Ahmedabad. On  June 18,  1962, respondent  No.  1  in  Civil Appeal No.  1445 of  1971, owners  of  some  pieces  of  the aforesaid land  filed Special  Civil Application  No. 564 of 1962 in  the High  Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution  challenging  the  validity  of  the  aforesaid notification dated  May 20, 1961 made under section 4 of the Act and  seeking to  restrain the Government from proceeding further with  the acquisition  proceedings contending  inter alia that  the land could not be acquired for the benefit of the Company in which the public was not directly interested. Interim injunction sought by the petitioner in that petition having been refused, the Additional Special Land Acquisition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Officer,  Ahmedabad,   appellant  No.  2  in  these  appeals proceeded to  hold the requisite enquiry under section 5A of the  Act  and  submitted  report  to  the  Government  on  a consideration whereof the latter issued a notification under section 6  of the  Act on  April 29,  1963. The notification inter alia  stated that  the lands mentioned in the Schedule thereto were needed to be acquired at the public expense for the public  purpose specified in column 4 of the Schedule to the  notification   viz.,  the  scheme  undertaken  by  Shri Yogeshwarnagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited with the sanction of  the Government.  Notices under  section 9(i) of the Act were served and the Special Land Acquisition Officer after  holding  the  requisite  enquiry  made  an  award  on December 21,  1963 determining  the amount  of  compensation payable by  the Government  to the  owners of  the land.  On demand being  made for  possession of land, respondent No. 1 in Civil  Appeal No.  1870 of 1970, who is the owner of some pieces of land sought to be acquired brought another Special Civil Application 30 No. 1100  of 1963  under Article  226 of the Constitution in the High  Court challenging the aforesaid notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and on his application, the High Court passed  an interim  order restraining  the  Government from taking  possession of the lands. On April 15, 1966, the Government  of   Gujarat  in  supersession  of  the  earlier resolution dated December 21, 1962 whereby it had sanctioned rupee one  towards the  cost of  acquisition, passed another resolution sanctioning contribution of Rs. 500/- towards the cost of acquisition. Considering that the notification dated April 29,  1963, issued by it under section 6 of the Act was illegal  and   invalid,  the   Government  of   Gujarat   by notification dated  April 28,  1966, cancelled  its  earlier notification dated  April 29, 1963 issued under section 6 of the Act  and issued  a fresh  notification in respect of the same pieces  of land  under section  6 of the Act on June 6, 1966. Respondent  No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 1445 of 1971 and petitioner in  Special Civil  Application No.  564  of  1962 thereupon amended  its application  with the  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 petition 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

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-opertive 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 the 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. State  of Gujarat  & Ors.(1)  Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors. v. The State of Punjab(2) and Ram 31 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.      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)  where   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 Act 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."      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

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

    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 32      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  Shodan’s case  (supra),  the  impugned judgment of  the Gujarat  High Court  cannot be  allowed  to stand. In  the result,  the appeals are allowed and the said judgment of  the High Court is quashed. The parties are left to bear and pay their own costs in these appeals. P.H.P.                                      Appeals allowed. 33