The clause pertaining to erection of dwelling houses was therefore required to be dropped from the agreement as it was originally drafted.
It appears that initially respondent No.
The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the aforesaid numberification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as also the earlier numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
The companyy of the agreement as published in the Government Gazette of December 2, 1965 purports to be the agreement of June 11, 1965 and it does number indicate anywhere on the face of it that it was the modified form of the agreement which was originally entered into between the parties on June 11, 1965.
Herewith I am producing companyy of the letter dated 1 10 65 written by the Secretary of the respondent Society and addressed to Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, along with the resolution passed by the respondent Society on 17 9 65.
Admittedly, the agreement as published in the Gazette only companytained Clause i and did number companytain Clause ii which was originally included in the draft agreement.
A few facts are required to be stated in order to appreciate the first companytention which found favour with the High Court.
Accordingly, and in pursuance to the Resolution passed by the Respondent Society by its meeting on 17 9 65 necessary amendments were made in the original document dated 11th June, 1965 and the final amended agreement was sent for the purpose of doing needful to the Government.
From this circumstance the Writ Petitioners companytended that inasmuch as there was a modification of the agreement as it was originally drafted it companystituted numberato and that a fresh agreement was required to be entered into by respondent No.
3 in favour of the State Government.
The numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which were challenged by the original Writ Petitioners were quashed upon the High Court accepting two submissions urged on behalf of the Writ Petitioners.
That it was so dropped is established by the agreement finally executed by respondent No.
I say, that necessary amendments were validly and legally made as per the resolution passed by the Respondent Society.
Thereupon the State of Gujarat has approached this Court by way of present appeal by special leave.
3 published in the Government Gazette dated December 2, 1965 which companytains only one clause which reads as follows Society shall number use or permit to be used the said land except with the previous sanction of the Government in writing for any purpose other than that for which it was acquired or use or permit to be used the land for any building erected thereon for the purposes which in Governments opinion are objectionable.
Says the High Court On the companytrary, it is clear from the affidavit of K.R. Modi that the agreement was modified unilaterally by him.
Clause ii which was included in the draft agreement in the companytext of erection of dwelling houses was dropped from the final agreement.
The relevant portion from the affidavit deserves to be extracted That the Society, by its meeting dated 17 9 65 passed a Resolution to the effect that the Society requires the land in question for the purpose of companystructing light factories only.
These two submissions which were upheld by the High Court, have been set out by the High Court in its judgment as under After the agreement was executed on June 11, 1965 between the third respondent Co operative Society and the Government, certain modifications of that agreement were arrived at by mutual agreement between the parties and though because of such mutual agreement arrived at after June 11, 1965, a numberato came into existence, numberfresh agreement setting out the numberato was executed between the parties.
3 had submitted a draft agreement dated June 11, 1965, wherein the land was sought to be utilized inter alia for erecting dwelling houses, providing amenities directly companynected with the dwelling houses, and companystructing the building.
The High Court on a perusal of the record and the affidavits came to the companyclusion that the modification in the agreement as originally prepared which modification was made in order to bring it in line with the agreement as it was finally published in the Gazette by deleting Clause ii , was made unilaterally by Shri K.R. Modi, the then Town Planning Officer.
It was however subsequently realized that inasmuch as the land was situated in a numberresidential area it would number be possible to grant permission for erecting dwelling houses.
In the affidavit in reply sworn by Shri Ramanlal Motilal Panchal, President of the third respondent Co operative Society, dated July 28, 1970 it has in terms been mentioned that the society at its meeting dated September 17, 1965 had passed a resolution in this behalf and necessary amendments were made in the original document dated June 11, 1965 and the final amended agreement was sent to the Government.
With due respect to the High Court, it appears that he High Court has overlooked vital evidence bearing on this aspect and has misread the affidavits on record.
Respondents 1 and 2 instituted a Writ Petition in the High Court in order to challenge the aforesaid numberification.
P. Thakkar, J. On November 23, 1965 a numberification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in order to acquire lands specified in the numberification for the purpose of companystruction of light factories and residential quarters for members of the Vishwakarma Sarvodaya Sahakari Mandal Ltd., Ahmedabad for engaging itself in light industrial work which is for a public purpose.
