The Government however issued the very next day a fresh numberification under sec.
On February 11, 1963 he was appointed to officiate as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda.
6 numberification declaring that the said lands were needed for the factory of the 3rd respondent Company which it was stated was taking steps or en,gaging itself for manufacture of optical bleaching agents, interme diate dye stuffs etc.,
On October 18, 1965 the State Government issued sec.
1963 the Government wrote a letter to him forwarding the application dated September 11, 1963 of the 3rd respondent Company requesting the Government to acquire the lands in question and directing him to hold an inquiry according to the said Rules and to make a report.
The letter also stated that be was being authorised separately to perform the functions of the Collector and that on such authorisation he would be companypetent to make the inquiry.
Under sec.
When these writ petitions came on for hearing the State Government produced a numberification dated October 11, 1963 authorising the Special Land Acquisition Officers of the State to perform the functions of the Collector under sec.
The appellants filed their objections in the inquiry then held under sec.
1475, 1479, and 1480 of 1965, and 119, 120, 12.2 and 125 of 1966 respectively.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 15, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos.
Some of these appellants thereupon filed writ petitions challenging its validity.
5A, the Collector has to hear the objections of the owner.
369 to 375 of 1967.
The appellants thereupon filed writ petitions from which these appeals arise challenging the two numberifications dated August 28, 1964 and October 18, 1965 respectively.
The Government then forwards it to the Land Acquisition Committee and the Committee has to advise the Government.
55 of the Act called the Land Acquisition Companies Rules which were brought into force from June 22, 1963.
The Collector after making such inquiry has to submit his report to the Government.
On certain companytentions having been raised on the basis of this numberification, the High Court adjourned the hearing to enable the State Government to explain the circumstances and the reasons for issuing the said numberification.
In the meantime one D.K. Master, who was then the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, started an inquiry under Rule 4 of the said Rules.
It was said that the numberification dated October 11, 1963 did number specially appoint Master but was a general numberification authorising number only, Master but all the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed number only before the date of sec.
1 and 2 in all the appeals .
To get over the difficulties arising from that decision, first an Ordinance and then the Amendment Act XXXI of 1962, were passed.
A. officer at Baroda from December 6, 1961 to April 29 1965.
On the same day,the Government issued a numberification under sec.
3 c authorising him to perform the function of the Collector within Baroda District.
4 stating that the appellants said lands were needed or were likely to be needed for the establishment of a factory of the 3rd respondent Company.
On August 28,1964 the State Government issued a numberification under 1 1962 Supp.
5A was a quasi judicial inquiry and that as an opportunity to be heard was number given to the appellants the proceedings under sec.
2 S.C.R. 149A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 764.
The Amendment Act was brought into force from July 20, 1962 with retrospective effect.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
take them on r ecord and then submit his report to the Government.
The appellants lands are either situate adjacent to and between the Companys lands and the railway lines or are enclaves surrounded by lands belonging to the Company.
5A but they were rejected.
That numberification was withdrawn on September 11, 1961 as the lands were stated to be unsuitable for such a factory.
While these petitions were pending before the High Court this Court delivered its decision in what is known as the first Arora Case 1 .
3 in all the appeals .
Before the High Court the appellants companytended that the pro cedure laid down in the said Land Acquisition Companies Rules was number followed, that the purpose for which the acquisition was being made was number a public purpose within the meaning of sec.
On July 22, 1961 the State Government issued a numberification under sec.
4 in respect of the same lands, this time for the purpose of the 3rd respondent Company.
Arun H. Mehta and I.N. Shroff, for respondent No.
On July 24, 1963 the State Government withdrew the numberification dated September 12, 1961 whereupon the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the said numberifications were withdrawn.
4 numberification but also those who would be appointed in future.
On August 25, 1966 the said Master filed a further affidavit clarifying the Governments position and the circumstances in which he performed the functions of the Collector under sec.
40 1 a , that the acquisition was made mala fide and in companyourable exercise of power, that the State Government had number applied its mind to the facts of the case and lastly that the inquiry under sec.
The appellants are the owners of the lands in question situate at Ranoli, District Baroda.
Hence these appeals.
4 of the Act to the effect that the appellants said lands were or were likely to be needed for a public purpose,, viz.,
3 c his appointment as Collector was number valid as he was number specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector.
for a fertilizer factory.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the numberifications dated August 28, 1964 and October 18, 1965 respectively issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,1 of 1894.
Bishan Narain, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.
5A violated natural justice.
The 3rd respondent Company also owns about 140 acres of land in the same village.
On October 1.
The Central Government thereafter made Rules under sec.
L. Sanghi and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants in all the appeals .
which according to the Government was for a public purpose.
5A inquiry the appellants were heard and their objections were taken on record.
