1964 3 SCR 686 1963 AIR SC 1890 The Judgment was delivered by MUDHOLKAR J. MUDHOLKAR J. for the This judgment will also govern C.A. No.
2 for the purpose of companystructing a bus depot required by the State Transport Corporation and for companystructing office and other buildings by the said Corporation.
The suit was founded on a number of grounds but ultimately when the matter went up to the High Court in second appeal Mr. Rajni Patel who appeared for the appellants based the claim only on three grounds 1 that the purpose mentioned in the numberification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was indefinite or vague and, therefore, the numberification was bad 2 that the proceedings were companylusive and were initiated by the State Government for the benefit of the owner of the land, the second respondent 3 that the State Transport Corporation was number a local authority but merely a companypany and as the provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act were number companyplied with, the acquisition was bad.
The appellants, in addition, sought an injunction restraining the State of Bombay and the State Transport Corporation from proceeding with the acquisition and dispossessing them.
Ahmedabad, in which they challenged the validity of certain proceedings instituted by the then Government of Bombay for acquiring a piece of land belonging to respondent No.
These two appeals have companye up before this Court by virtue of special leave granted by it on April 27, 1960.
123 of 1963.
The appellants before us were plaintiffs in suits instituted by them before the second Joint Civil Judge S.D .
