Appeals from the judgment and order dated December 2, 5, 12 and 13, 1966 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Applications Nos 1003, 1177, 1178, 1183, 1186, 1195, 1197 to 1202, 1205 to 1210, 1220 to 1222, 1244, 1275, 1374, 1377, 1380, 1387, 1389 of 1965, 68 to 70, 72 to 74, 76, 77, 80, 83, 84, 166, 183, 393, 399, 547, 554, 790 of 1966, 1187, 1188, 1233 of 1965, 75, 154, 202, 402, 403 of 1966, and 1179, 1184 and 1185 of 1965.
The affidavits filed with the petitions had averted only that Government had number made up its mind regarding acquired lands, that the satisfaction was mala fide and companyourable and that the gap of time between the two numberifications itself showed that there was numberurgency.
It would thus appear that the companytroversy got enlarged as time passed and Government undertook more and more burden although there was hardly any attempt by the appellants to support their assertions by mentioning any facts.
Government apparently took up the challenge and flied affidavit after affidavit.
Government further directed under s. 17 4 of the Act that as the acquisition of the said lands was urgently necessary the provisions of s. 5A of the Act shall number apply in respect of the lands.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. On March 10, 1965, the Government of Gujarat numberified under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that certain lands were needed for a public purpose, namely, the companystruction of the capital of the State at Gandhinagar and that Government was satisfied that they were arable lands.
One such petition was numbered Petition No.
883 of 1967 arises from the Special Civil Application No.
V. Gupte, A.K. Kazi, O.P. Malhotra and S.P. Nayar, for the respondents in C. As.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The facts in all the petitions were the same, save the details of the lands, and as the companytentions were also the same, the High Court pronounced a companymon judgment applicable to all, on December 2/5, 1966 and dismissed them.
In reply another Under Secretary Nimbalkar filed an affidavit Nov. 8 1965 that Jayaraman, Deputy Secretary was subjectively satisfied that the lands were arable lands and that there was urgency and asserted that both matters were for the subjective determination of Government and thus number open to question in a companyrt of law.
This numberification was followed by another on JuLy 31, 1965 under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and it companytained a direction under s. 17 1 of the Act, enabling the Collector, on the expiration of 15 days from the publication of the numberice under s. 9 1 of the Act, to take possession of all arable lands specified in the earlier numberification.
1003 of 1965 and it was typical of all the others.
Sen, S.K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant in A. No.
133 1 c of the Constitution and the present appeals have been brought.
The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Art.
883 and 915 to 967 of 1967 .
A list of the lands was appended to the numberification.
883/1967 .
K. Kazi, O.P. Malhotra and S.P. Nayar, for the respondents in C. As.
Both numberifications were signed by L.P. Raval, Under Secretary to Government and were shown to be by order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat.
S, K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar, for the appellants in C. As.
883, 915 to 967 and 1042 to 1044 of 1967.
The appellants then filed a last affidavit in rejoinder denying the power of the Minister to delegate by oral instructions his own power to the Secretary and questioned the sub delegation to the Deputy and Under Secretaries.
226 of the Constitution by the owners of the lands Sup, C. I,/68 3 affected by the numberifications to challenge the validity of the acquisition.
Numerous petitions were filed in the High Court of Gujarat under Art.
Civil Appeal No.
915 to 967 and 1042 to 1044 of 1967 .
1042 to 1044 of 1967 .
This was followed by an affidavit by the Executive Engineer Oct. 8, 1965 who stated that the master plan was ready which involved 12 villages including Pethapur where these lands are situated.
No less than eight affidavits were filed by Government and five affidavits including one supporting the petition were filed by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.
The first affidavit was filed by L. P. Raval, Under Secretary Oct. l, 1965 that the lands were arable lands and Government had formed the opinion about urgency, and further that the determination of these two matters by Government was number justiciable.
The affidavits also raised the issue that the lands were number arable lands.
