# GIRDHARILAL AMRATLAL SHODAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 437
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-01-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1070 of 1965
- **Bench:** A. K. Sarkar, J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/girdharilal-amratlal-shodan-and-others-v-state-of-gujarat-and-others-3552
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

c
D
E
F
G
H
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894)-N_otification under •: 6
invalid and ineffective-Po-.ver of Governnzent to issue fresh not1ficatlon.
Where a notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894
is invalid, the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its
place a fresh notification under s. 6. Nothing in s. 48 of the Act precludes the Government from doing so.
The cancellation of the earlier
notification is only a recognition of the invalidity of that notification.
[439 B-C]

## Text

' .,
A
GIRDHARILAL AMRATLAL SHODAN AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
January 28, 1966
B
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
H
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894)-N_otification under •: 6
invalid and ineffective-Po-.ver of Governnzent to issue fresh not1ficatlon.
Where a notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894
is invalid, the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue in its
place a fresh notification under s. 6. Nothing in s. 48 of the Act precludes the Government from doing so.
The cancellation of the earlier
notification is only a recognition of the invalidity of that notification.
[439 B-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1070 of
1965.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 2, 1965
of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
584 of 1961.
Nire11 De, Additional Solicitor-General and J. B. Dadachanji
for the appellants.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent
Nos. I and 2.
Arun H. Mehta, M. N. Shroff and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J, : On August, 3, 1960, the Government.of Gujarat
issued a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) stating that the land measuring
about 7151 sq. yards in Final Plot No. 460 of the Town Planning
Scheme No. III of Elisbridge in Ahmedabad taluka city, village
Changispur, was likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz.,
for construction of houses for Shri Krishnakunj Government
Servants Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., Ahmedabad. The
land is the subject-matter of a trust of which appellant No. 1 is
the trustee and appellants Nos. 2 to 6 are the beneficiaries. An
enquiry under s. 5-A of the Act was duly held, and a report under
5. 5A(2) was made to the Government. On July 18, 1961, the State
Government issued a notification under s. 6 of the Act stating
that the land was needed to be acquired for the aforesaid public
purpose at the expense of Shri Krishnakunj Government Servants
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. On September 22, · 1961,
the appellants filed a writ application in the High Court of Gujarat
437
4 38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 3 S.C.R.
praying for an order quashing the notification under s. 6 dated July
18, 1961. During the pendency of this application, the Government
issued a notification dated April 28, 1964 cancelling the aforesaid notification dated July 18, 1961. On August 14, 1964, the
Gov~rnment issued a fresh notification under s. 6 stating that the
land was needed to be acquired at the public expense for a public
purpose, viz., for the housing scheme undertaken by Shri Krishnakunj Government Servants Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd.,
Ahmedabad with the sanction of the Government. The appellants were thereupon allowed to amend the writ petition, and by
the amended writ petition, they prayed for an order quashing the
notification under s. 6 dated August 14, 1964 as also the notification
under s. 4 dated August 3, 1960. On April 2, 1965, the High Court
dismissed the application. The appellants now appeal to this
Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the power of the State
Government to cancel a notification under s. 6 of the Act implied
by s. 21 of the General Clauses
Act,
1897 is subject to the
condition that the Government should withdraw from the acquisition as provided for in s. 48 of the Act, by cancelling the notification under s. 6 dated July 18, 1961, the Government must be taken
to have withdrawn from the acquisition and cancelled the notification under s. 4 dated August 3, 1960 also and consequently the Government could not issue the notification under s. 6 dated August
14, 1964 without issuing a fresh notification under s. 4 and making
a fresh enquiry under s. SA.
Counsel for the respondents disputed
the correctness of this submission.
It is to be noticed that the notification under s. 6 dated July
18, 1961 stated that the land was required for a public purpose
at the expense of Shri Krishnakunj Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The Government had no power
to issue this notification. Having regard to the proviso to s. 6
of the Act, a declaration for acquisition of the land for a public
purpose could only be made if the compensation to be awarded for
it was to be paid wholly or partly out of public revenues or some
fund controlled or managed by a local authority. The Government had no power to issue a notification for acquisition for a public
purpose where the compensation was to be paid entirely by a company. The notification dated July 18, 1961 was, therefore, invalid and of no effect, see Shyam Behari v. State of Madhya Pradesh( ). The appellants filed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid notification on this ground. The challenge was justified and
the notification was liable to be quashed by the Court. The State
Government realised that the notification was invalid, and without
waiting for an order of Court, cancelled the notification on April
(I) [196416 S.C.R. 636; A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 427.
A
H
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
~·'
'
1
,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHODAN v. GUJARAT (Bachawat, !.)
'
''
439
28, 1964. The cancellation was in recognition of the invalidity
of the notification. The Government had no intention of withdrawing from the acquisition. Soon after the cancellation, the
Government issued a fresh notification under s. 6 where, as in
this case, the notification under s. 6 is incompetent and invalid,
the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under s. 6. This is what, in substance, the Government did
in this case. The cancellation on April 28, 1964 was no more
than a recognition of the invalidity of the earlier notification.
There is nothing .in s. 48, which precluded the Government from
treating the earlier invalid notification as ineffective and issuing
in its place an effective notification under. s. 6. Where the notification under s. 6 is lawful and valid, a question may well arise
whether the Government can cancel it without withdrawing from '
the acquisition, as provided for under s. 48. But no such question arises in this case and we express no opinion on it.
Counsel for the appellants next submitted that on issuing the
notification dated July 18, 1961 the power of the State Government
to issue a notification under s. 6 was exhausted and the Government could not issue a fresh notification under s. 6. There is no
substance in this contention. The notification dated July 18,
1961 was invalid. By the issue of this notification, the Government had not effectively exercised its power under s. 6. In the
circumstances, the Government could well issue the fresh notification under s. 6 dated August 14, 1964.
Counsel for the appellants next submitted that the notification under s. 6 must be issued without unreasonable delay after
the issue of the notification under s. 4 and consequently, the notification dated August 14, 1964 is invalid, as it was issued after
unreasonable delay. This contention was not raised in the High
Court. On September 25, 1961, soon after the filing of the writ
petition, the appellants obtained an injunction restraining the
Government from proceeding with the acquisition. We are informed that this injunction continued for some time and was modified at a later date. Until the modification of the injunction, the
Government could not take further steps in the acquisition. The
question whether there was unreasonable delay in the issuing of
the notification dated August 14, 1964 was not put in issue and
was not investigated in the Court below. We, therefore, indicated
in the course of the argument that the appellants cannot be allowed
to urge this point for the first time in this Court. We express
no opinion one way or the other whether the Government is bound
to issue the notification under s. 6 without reasonable delay after
the issue of the notification under s. 4.
In the High Court, the appellants c•ntended that the public
purpose set out in the notification dated August 14, 1964 was
MIO Sup.C.I./66-15
440
SuPRBMB COUllT REPORTS
[l 966) 3 S.C.R.
different from the public purpose set out in the notification dated
July 18, 1961 and the Government could not issue the notification
dated August 14, 1964 without issuing a fresh notification under
s. 4. The High Court repelled this contention. It found that
the public purpose set out in the notification dated August 14,
1964 was identical with the public purpose set out in the notification dated July 18, 1961. This finding is no longer challenged
before us.
The appeal fails, and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B