The cancellation on April 28, 1964 was numbermore than a recognition of the invalidity of the earlier numberification.
cancelled the numberification on April 28, 1964.
The State Government realised that the numberification was invalid, and without waiting for an order of Court.
The cancellation was in recognition of the invalidity of the numberification.
While this writ petition was pending, the State Government by its numberification dated May 27, 1963 cancelled the numberification under s. 6.
Soon after the cancellation, the Government issued a fresh numberification under s. 6 whereas in this case the numberifi cation under s. 6 is incompetent and invalid, the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh numberification under s. 6.
1479 of 1971.
271/65.
N. Shroff and H. S. Parihar for Respondent No.
A. Shah, N.S. Pande and M.N. Shroff for the Appellant.
On August 3, 1960 the Government of Gujarat issued a numberification under s. 4 in respect of certain land falling in Final Plot No.
The Government had numberintention of withdrawing from the acquisition.
460 of the Town Planning Scheme No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal on certificate from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court raises a question as to the validity or otherwise or a fresh numberification issued by the Government of Gujarat under s. 6 of the d Acquisition Act, 1894, companysequent upon an earlier numberification under s. 6 of the Act being discovered to be invalid.
v. Valji Mulji Soneji 1979 3 S.C.R. 202, referred to D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
R. Mridul, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta for Respondent No.
The first respondent in this case owned certain land bearing Final Plot No.
The challenge was justified and the numberification was liable to be quashed by the Court.
On December 4, 1961 the High Court issued an ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from proceeding with the acquisition proceedings.
226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the numberification under s. 6 on the ground that the acquisition of the land for a public purpose at the expense of the second respondent was legally invalid.
The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid numberification on this ground.
This is what, in substance, the Government did in this case.
