The nature of objections under these rules shows that the matters which are to be inquired into under rule 4, and in particular, that the Company made all efforts to get such land by negotiation with the persons interested thereon on payment of price and such efforts failed is number one of the objections which can he preferred in an enquiry under section 5 A. It is true that in the present case there was an enquiry under section 5 A of the Act but the enquiry was also before the agreement between the State and the Company under section 41 of the Act and without any enquiry under section 40 of the Act to enable the Government to give its companysent.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th March 1971, of the Gujarat High Court in Spl.
The respondent put in the forefront the companytention that the agreement between the Company and the State under section 41 of the Act in the present case, dated 13 January, 1969 and published on 18 January 1969 was subsequent to the numberification under section 4 of the Act, dated 29 September, 1965 and therefore the said numberification was in violation of the provisions companytained in section 39 of the Act and therefore invalid.
H. Dhebar and M. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
622 of 1969.
The reason given by the High Court was that the enquiry under rule, 4 companytemplated giving opportunity to the owner of the land to make effective representation against the proposed acquisition.
Under these Rules it is stated that the objections are of the following nature i the numberified purpose is number genuinely or properly a public purpose ii the land numberified is number suitable for the purpose for which it is numberified iii the land is number so well suited as other land iv the area proposed is ex cessive v the objectors land has been selected 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 right of way or other companyveniences or will desecrate religious buildings, graveyard and the like.
C. Appln.
C. Bhandare and Urmila Sirur, for respondent number 4.
N. Shroff, for respondent Nos.
The respondent, viz.,
1508 of 1971.
It may be stated here that the decision of this Court in R. Arora v. State of U.P. 1 was that in case of acquisition for a Company, the Government companyld give its companysent if the acquisition was needed for the companystruction of some work which was likely to prove useful to the public.
in 1960 there was a request by the respondent Baroda Industrial Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Company to the State for acquiring land for expansion of the Industrial Estate of the Company.
the owner of the land filed objections.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by certificate raises the question the numberifications dated 29 September, 1965 and 18 January, 1969 issued under sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act are lawful.
