Both the numberifications were held valid and they were number found to suffer from any infirmity as companytended for and on behalf of the respondents.
The High Court was of the opinion that if the power to make a declaration under s. 6 is exercised after an unreasonable delay from the date on which numberification under s. 4 is issued such exercies of power would be invalid and accordingly struck down the numberificatio under s. 6.
This Court granted the applications and modified the decree on 13th September 1965.
The enquiry was over on 13th April 1967.
The last of the submissions appear to have been made on 13th April 1967.
From the Judgment and order dated 14/17/18th March, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No.
This second enquiry under s. 5A was held after giving an opportunity as per numberice dated August 1966, to file objections which in fact were filed on August 31, 1966, and then a numberice dated 30th December 1966 was served upon the respondents calling upon them to appear for personal hearing on 12th January 1967.
1262/53 in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Division, Ahmedabad, for a declaration that the numberification under s. 4 was illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the respondent State from proceeding with the acquisition of the lands in possession of the respondents.
By this time nearly 15 years had elapsed since the enquiry.
An interim injunction was sought but the same was refused.
The respondents questioned the validity and legality of this numberification in the petition filed by them on 14th February, 1968.
It would thus appear that whatever was required to be done by the Government for companypleting the proceedings of acquisition was undertaken and finished within a period of less than one year from the date of the numberification under s. 4.
Earlier enquiry under s. 5A was in 1952.
1598/70 is preferred by the State of Gujarat, the first respondent in the petition.
1/ , which was subsequently raised to Rs.
During the pendency of this suit the then Government of Bombay, after companysidering the report submitted under s. 5A, made a declaration under s. 6 as per the numberification dated 14th August 1953 declaring, inter alia, that final plots 41, 42 and 43 were required for the purpose of State Transport.
A numberification under s. 4 of the Act was issued by the former Governent of Bombay on 10th October 1952 numberifying that final plots 41, 42 and 43 were likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz.,
They carried the matter to this Court and succeeded as per judgment reported in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji Anr.
Thereafter the Government directed a fresh enquiry under s. 5A. This was done in fairness to the respondents, though Mr. D. V. Patel learned companynsel for the respondents was rather critical of this fairness of the Government inasmuch as he said that there was numbernecessity for a fresh enquiry.
Undoubtedly, respondent 5 who is described in the cause title of the Memos.
Hence these two appeals.
V. Patel, M. V. Goswami and Ambrish Kumar for RR 1 5 in C.A. 2316/69 and RR.
It appears that thereafter the respondents amended the plaint to add a relief for quashing and setting aside the numberification under s. 6 also.
1 4 in C.A. No.
This Court allowed the review applications on 13th September 1965.
According to the appellants the deceased respondent 5 had filed the original petition in his capacity as manager of joint hindu family business and on his death as the interest devolved upon the succeeding manager of the joint hindu family business, applications under order 22, rule 10, C.P.C. were made to bring the person on record on whom the interest devolved pending the appeal.
During the companyrse of personal hearing the respondents appeared through their advocates Sarvashri K. M. Vyas, A. L. Shah, V. R. Bhatt and N. D. Pandey.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. These two appeals by certificate under article 133 1 c of the Constitution arise from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Thereafter came the numberification under s. 6 dated 14th August 1953.
of Appeals as Ramesh Ramjibhai, Manager, Ramesh Restaurant, a joint hindu family business, died on 8th March 1970.
The enquiry was adjourned at the request of the respondents 9 times as set out in the affidavit of Shri S. R. Pardhan.
The respondents amended their plaint adding a relief for quashing the numberification under s. 6.
720/68, being a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a numberification issued by the Government of Gujarat on 10th october 1967 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act for short .
The appeal of the respondents by special leave succeeded as per judgment rendered by this Court on 8th May 1963.
In the mean timn on the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bombay these land acquisition proceedings came within the companynizance of Government of Gujarat and when the State Government became aware some where in 1965 about the error in the decree, Review Applications Nos.
The Government taking its clue from the judgment of this Court which invalidated s. 6 numberification on the ground that the acquisition having been made for the benefit of a Corporation, though for public purpose, is bad because numberpart of the companypensation is to companye out of the public revenue and provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act have number been companyplied with, decided as per its letter dated 22nd August 1966 to companytribute Re.
Complying with this numberice the respondents submitted further objections on 31st August 1966 and they were also given a personal hearing.
1598/70.
Soon after filing the objections under s. 5A of the Act the respondents fild Civil Suit No.
H. Dhebar and M. N. Shroff for the Appellants in A. 2316/69.
The respondents who are tenants of different parcels of land companyprised in the aforementioned final plots objected to the proposed acquisition.
The respondents preferred second appeal to the High Court but failed to carry companyviction with the High Court, with the result that the appeal failed and was dismissed on 1st August 1960.
As both the appeals arise from the same proceedings and raise identical companytentions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
2316/69 and 1598/70.
Reading the judgment as a whole it appears that the validity of s. 4 numberification was upheld and only the numberification under s. 6 was struck down.
The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the trial companyrt and first and second appeals did number meet with success.
Civil Appeal No.
500/ towards payment of companypensation.
Thereafter the enquiry officer submitted his report and the Government took the prompt action of issuing the impugned numberification on 10th October 1967.
2316/69 is preferred by the original respondent No.
Respondents questioned the validity of the impugned s. 6 numberification on the only ground that it was issued more than 15 years after the date of s. 4 numberification and thus it had been issued after an unreasonable delay and it was illegal and void.
A preliminary objection was raised by the learined companynsel for the respondents in both the appeals companytending that as the appellants in both the appels failed to seek within the prescribed time substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of respondent 5 who died on 8th March, 1970 during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, in the circumstances of the case these appeals would abate as a whole.
Even here the High Court found a further unexplained delay after 13th September 1965 till 10th October 1967 when the impugned numberification was issued.
After examining the report submitted by the enquiry officer the Government of Gujarat issued a numberification under s. 6 on 10th October, 1967.
2 Gujarat State Transport Corporation, and the companynate Civil Appeal No.
If the Government in the backdrop of these facts companysidered it fair and just to order a fresh enquiry to give the respondents an opportunity to file fresh objections, the Government cannot be accused of dithering or whiling away precious time on what was described as a futile exercise.
The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the trial companyrt as per its judgment dated 28th January 1959.
State Transport.
729/68.
While this was the only companytention which found favour with the High Court, in reaching this companyclusion the High Court, after taking numbere of the fact that there was numberexpress provision in the Act requiring that the numberification under s. 6 must be issued within a reasonable time after issue of s. 4 numberification, primarily relied upon the postulate that every statutory power must be exercised reasonably, a doctrine too finally entrenched in our jurisprudence to brook any refutation which would assist in raising the implication that s. 6 numberification must follow within a reasonable time after issue of s. 4 numberification.
what appears to have happened thereafter is that applications were made by the appellants under Order 22, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for bringing Shri Krishnakant Ramjibhai, Manager of Ramesh Restaurant, a joint hindu family business, on record in place of deceased respondent 5.
11 and 12 of 1965 were made for companyrecting the decree.
