# KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI & ANR v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 908
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-17
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kanaiyalal-maneklal-chinai-anr-v-state-of-gujarat-ors-4882
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Commi.uioners of Divisions Act (Bom. Act 8 of 1958)
ss. 3(3) &
3(4)-Valtduy of powers giVt!fl to State Governn1ent-Notice under s. 4
L(~!l1.Acquisition Act (1 of IS94)
given by Cotn1nissioner Alunedabad
~tv1s1on ( Bo111bay)-Notice under s. 6 giiJen by Con11nissioner Baroda Divi-
.Holl ~Gujarat)-Va/idity of notice under s. 6-Provilicial Municipal Cor ..
porat1on Act, 1949-Municipality of A/unedabad requesting State Govern ..
111e11t to r.cquire land for mernorial to A-tahatn1a Gandhi-Conunissioner in
acquiring land lVhetlzer nucst follo1v procedr1re in ss. 77 &
78 of ActA1 unicipal purpose and 'public purpose'-Mention of 'instr111nentality' for
carrying out purpose whether necessary to f,12J<e notices under ss. 4 and
6 of land Acquisition Act enforceable-Application of n1ind by Commissioner.
The Ahmodabad Municipal Corporation resolved to move the Govern·
ment of Bombay State (then undivided) to acquire a part of land belonging to the appellants for setting up a Santadhi of Mahatma Gandhi. The
Commissioner of Ahmedabad Division acUng under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, as an1cnded by the Con1missioncrs of Division Act, 1958. issued
a notification under s. 4 of the former Act declaring that the land was
likely to be required for a public purpose. Thereafter the State of Bombay
\Vas divided and city of Ahmedabad. became pa1t of the State of Gujarat.
The notice under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the appel·
Jants' land was issued by the Commissioner, Baroda Division of the State
of Gujarat who by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was the
.appropriate authority to do so.
The appellants moved a petition in the
High Court of Gujarat for a writ quashing the proceedin_gs t11k 1.::1 under the
Land Acquisition· Act and restraining the authorities from enforcing the
notifications under ss. 4 and 6.
The High .Court re.ie~ted the petition.
\Vith certificate, an appeal was filed in this G:lurt. The appellants eontcnded: (i) that the Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1958 was ultra vires
the legislature; (ii) that .the Commissioner Baroda Division was incompe·
tent ·to issue a notification under s. 6 without issuing a fresh notification
under s. 4; (iii) that the notifications were defective because ·of non.
compliance with ss. 77 and 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporation
Act, 1949 and because the purpose for which the acquisition was sought
to be made was not a municipal purpos:::; (iv) that the notifications were
uncnfdrceable because the "instr~1mcntality" to carry out the purpOse _was
not set out in the notifications; (v) that the Commissioner had not app)ied
l1is mind·to the ev"idencc. when i~suin.g the notifica1ion under s. 6.
HELD: (i) Bccau~c of the decision of this Court in Arnohl Rodericks
. & A nr. the challenge to the vircs of the Commissioners of Divisions Act,
1958 on the ground of exCessivc delegation of powers of the State Govern- .
tnent and abdication of the functions of the Legislature, must fail. [912 G·
913 A]
A mold Rodricks & Anr. v. Stc.te of Maharashtr(t & Ors. [1966] 3 S.C.R.
885 followed ond applied.
(ii) The notification under s. A. W.?.s
issued
by
the Commissioner
Ahnredabad Division who was competent to issue it as an officer of the
A
B
c
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
K. M. CHINA! \'. GUJARAT
90~
State of Bombay. The Con1mis~.ioncr of Baroda \\'as competent to cxcrcisi:
1.he po·n-·ers und~r the Commissioners of Divisions Act which continued to
remain in force in the new State of Gujarat in respect of the Land Acquisition Act ;,n1d he had on that account po\\·er to issue i notification under
s. 6 of th!.' Act.
There \Vas nothing in the Land ,o\cquisifrJn Act or the
Commissioners of Divisions Act requiring that in order to invest the notification under s. 6 \\'ith validity, the Commissioner of the State of Gujarat
h;::J in the first instance to issue a notification under s. 4. [913 B-Ej
(iii) Exercise of pO\.VCr to move the State under s. 78 of the Provincial
\lunicipal Cc'rporation Act is not

## Text

908
KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI & ANR.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
October 17, 1969
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J
Commi.uioners of Divisions Act (Bom. Act 8 of 1958)
ss. 3(3) &
3(4)-Valtduy of powers giVt!fl to State Governn1ent-Notice under s. 4
L(~!l1.Acquisition Act (1 of IS94)
given by Cotn1nissioner Alunedabad
~tv1s1on ( Bo111bay)-Notice under s. 6 giiJen by Con11nissioner Baroda Divi-
.Holl ~Gujarat)-Va/idity of notice under s. 6-Provilicial Municipal Cor ..
porat1on Act, 1949-Municipality of A/unedabad requesting State Govern ..
111e11t to r.cquire land for mernorial to A-tahatn1a Gandhi-Conunissioner in
acquiring land lVhetlzer nucst follo1v procedr1re in ss. 77 &
78 of ActA1 unicipal purpose and 'public purpose'-Mention of 'instr111nentality' for
carrying out purpose whether necessary to f,12J<e notices under ss. 4 and
6 of land Acquisition Act enforceable-Application of n1ind by Commissioner.
The Ahmodabad Municipal Corporation resolved to move the Govern·
ment of Bombay State (then undivided) to acquire a part of land belonging to the appellants for setting up a Santadhi of Mahatma Gandhi. The
Commissioner of Ahmedabad Division acUng under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, as an1cnded by the Con1missioncrs of Division Act, 1958. issued
a notification under s. 4 of the former Act declaring that the land was
likely to be required for a public purpose. Thereafter the State of Bombay
\Vas divided and city of Ahmedabad. became pa1t of the State of Gujarat.
The notice under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the appel·
Jants' land was issued by the Commissioner, Baroda Division of the State
of Gujarat who by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was the
.appropriate authority to do so.
The appellants moved a petition in the
High Court of Gujarat for a writ quashing the proceedin_gs t11k 1.::1 under the
Land Acquisition· Act and restraining the authorities from enforcing the
notifications under ss. 4 and 6.
The High .Court re.ie~ted the petition.
\Vith certificate, an appeal was filed in this G:lurt. The appellants eontcnded: (i) that the Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1958 was ultra vires
the legislature; (ii) that .the Commissioner Baroda Division was incompe·
tent ·to issue a notification under s. 6 without issuing a fresh notification
under s. 4; (iii) that the notifications were defective because ·of non.
compliance with ss. 77 and 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporation
Act, 1949 and because the purpose for which the acquisition was sought
to be made was not a municipal purpos:::; (iv) that the notifications were
uncnfdrceable because the "instr~1mcntality" to carry out the purpOse _was
not set out in the notifications; (v) that the Commissioner had not app)ied
l1is mind·to the ev"idencc. when i~suin.g the notifica1ion under s. 6.
HELD: (i) Bccau~c of the decision of this Court in Arnohl Rodericks
. & A nr. the challenge to the vircs of the Commissioners of Divisions Act,
1958 on the ground of exCessivc delegation of powers of the State Govern- .
tnent and abdication of the functions of the Legislature, must fail. [912 G·
913 A]
A mold Rodricks & Anr. v. Stc.te of Maharashtr(t & Ors. [1966] 3 S.C.R.
885 followed ond applied.
(ii) The notification under s. A. W.?.s
issued
by
the Commissioner
Ahnredabad Division who was competent to issue it as an officer of the
A
B
c
E
F
G
A
B
c
D
E
K. M. CHINA! \'. GUJARAT
90~
State of Bombay. The Con1mis~.ioncr of Baroda \\'as competent to cxcrcisi:
1.he po·n-·ers und~r the Commissioners of Divisions Act which continued to
remain in force in the new State of Gujarat in respect of the Land Acquisition Act ;,n1d he had on that account po\\·er to issue i notification under
s. 6 of th!.' Act.
There \Vas nothing in the Land ,o\cquisifrJn Act or the
Commissioners of Divisions Act requiring that in order to invest the notification under s. 6 \\'ith validity, the Commissioner of the State of Gujarat
h;::J in the first instance to issue a notification under s. 4. [913 B-Ej
(iii) Exercise of pO\.VCr to move the State under s. 78 of the Provincial
\lunicipal Cc'rporation Act is not conditioned by a prior attempt at purchase oy agrecm~nt in the manner laid do\\·n in s. 77. The oj)cning, cl~tusc
of s. 78 merely indicates an alternative and not a con<lition.
Even if no
attempt, is n1ad: under
s.
77 to acquire the land by agreement.
it is open to the Co1nmissioncr of
the
!\funicipal
Co'rporJtion
\vith
the approval of the Standing Cotnmittce and subject to the other provi-;ion:-.
of the Act, co move the Provincial Govi.:rnmcnt to take sto;::ps
for the
acquisit'on of land.
[914 D-E]
The notifi:ation unr.lcr s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act did not rcf;.!r
to any purpose of the Ahmc<labad ~lunicipal Corporaticin nor was
thl!
;.1cquisition for a purpose for which the Commissioner -w·as required by th~
provisiC!n·, of the Provincial 'totlunicipal Corporati.,n Act, 1949 to acquin.'
the land.
But since the land was required for ~ctting- up a memorial tl'
Mahutma Gandhi who is held in 1Jniversal vene·ration in this country, :1t
a place assoeiat~J with him, the purpose \Vas a public purpose within thi.:-
norn1al connotation of that expression as used in s. 4 of the Land Acqui:-.ition Act.
That being so it \Vas unnecessary to rely upon the c:.-.tcn<lcd
meaning of the cxpr.::~sion 'public purpose' as provided by s. 78( l) of thi:
Provinciul
~lunicipal Corporation Act. 1949. [915 A·D]
Whether the municipal funds if used for the public purpose of scttin.~!
up of 01 memorial to Mah:.ittna Gandhi would he lawfully utilised "·as not
a n1attcr within the periphery of the enquiry in the pres.cnt ~1ppea1. 191 ~
El
(iv)
F<iilur~ to specify the in!-!trumentality which is to execute
thi.:o
puhlic purpose docs not affect the validity of the notific3tion either undcl'
s. 4 or under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act [916 A]
F
Ramji Popatlwi v. Jamnadas Shah, (1969) Gui. L.R. 164.
upprovcd.
G
II
Vishnu Pra.'icid Rtunc/r;s Gohil & Ors. v. Tlte State<•! (i11jul'(1t, (1970j
~ S.C.R. followed,
( v) ()n, the facts of thi.:o case thc"re was no justification fer the- an~un1cnt
that the Commissioner Baroda Division did not apply hi~ n1ind in ·hsuin!.!
the r,otification under s. 6. [916 BJ
·
C!vn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1102 of
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 28, 29. 30.
1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.
622ofl96l.
S. V. Gupte, H. H. Chatrapati and B. Datta, for the appellan1'.
N. S. Bindra a.nd S. P. Nayar, .for respondents Nos. [ to 3.
B. Sen and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 4.
910
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J.
The appellants are owners of "China Baug" situated
on the southern bank of the river Sabarmati within the limits of
the Municipal Corporat!on of Ahmedabad.
The Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation resolved to move the State Government to
acquire a part of the land of the appdlants for setting up a S@iadhi
of Mahatma Gandhi. On Septen!ber l 0, 1959, the Commissioner.
Alunedabad Division, in the State of Bombay, issued a notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, stating :
"Whereas it appears to the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division, that the lands specified in the schedule
hereto are likely to be needed for pub!ic purpose viz. for
'The Memorial of Rashtrapita Mahatma Gandhi' :
It is hereby notified under the provisions of Section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) "that
the said lands are likely to be needed for the purpose
specified above".
Enquiry was made under s. SA of the Land Acquisition Act and
after receiving the report of the Collector, the Commissioner,
Baroda Division of the State of Gujarat (who by virtue of the
Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, was the appropriate authority)
issued a notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on
August 31, 1961, that the lands were required for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the schedule to the notification i.e.
"Memorial of Mahatma Gandhi".
The appellants moved a petition in the High Court of Gujarat
for a writ quashing the proceeding under the Land Acquisition
Act and the two notifications dated September I 0, 1959 and
August 31, 1961 and for a writ restraining the Commissioner,
Baroda Division, and the Government of the State of Gujarat from
enforcing the notification~. The High Court rejected tlie petition.
With certificate granted by the High Court u:-ider Art. 133(1 )(c)
of the Constitution this appeal is preferred by the appellants.
Counsel for the appellant contended that :
(I) that the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8 of
1958 pursu.ant to_ which the Commissioners of Divisions
were vested with authority to discharge statutory functions vested in the State Commissioner was ultra vires
the legislature.
(2) that in any event the Commissioner,
Baroda
Division, State of Gujarat was incompetent to issue the
notification under s. 6 without issuing a fresh notification under s. 4:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K, M. Cl!INAI V. GUJARAT (Shah, J.)
(3) that since the land was notified for acquisition
for the purposes of the Municipal Corporation the provisions of ss. 77 and 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, should have been complied with.
Jn any event acquisition of land for "a Memorial to
Mahatma Gandhi" was not acquisition for a Municipal
purpose and the notifications were without the authority
of law;
( 4) that the "instrumentality" which was to carry out
the purpose not having been set out in the notifications
under ss. 4 & 6 tile notifications were illeirnl and on that
account unenforceable; and
-
(5) that the Commissioner, Baroda Division, in issuing the notification under s. 6 did not apply his mind to
the evidence before him and on that account the notification was liable to be struck down.
91 l
To appreciate the two branches of the first contention, 1t 1<
necessary to set out the relevant statutory provisions.
By s. 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by the Adaptation of
Laws Order, 1950, it w.as enacted that whenever it appears to
the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed
or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to
that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification
to be given at convenient places in the said locality.
Section 6
I 1 I, insofar as it is relevant, provided :
"Subject to the provisions of Part VII of this Act,
when the appropriate Govt. is satisfied, after considering
the report, if any, made under section SA, sub-section
(2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to
that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such
Govt. or of some officer duly authorized to certify its
order&
"
The Legislature of the State of Bombay enacted the Conunissioners of Divisions Act 8 of 1958. By s. 3 of that Act it
\\'as provided :
"(l) For the purposes
of constituting offices
of
Commissioners of divisions and conferring powers and
imposing duties on Commissioners and for certain other
purposes, the enactments specified in column 1 of the
Schedule to this Act shall b' amended in the manner
and to the extent specified in column 2 thereof.
-912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
(2) The Commissioner of a division,
appointed
A
under the Jaw relating to land revenue as amended by
the said Schedule, shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred and imposed on the Commissioner by any law for the time being in force, including the enactments referred to in sub-sect\on
(1) as
amended by the said Schedule.
B
(3)
(4) The State Government may confer and impose
on the Commissioner powers and duties under any other
enactment for the 'time being in force and for that purpose may, by a notirication in the Official Gazette, add
c
to or specify in the Schedule the necessary adaptations
and modifications in that enactment by way of amendment; and thercupon-
(a) every such enactment shall accordingly be amended and have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made, and
D
(b) the Schedule to this Act shall be deemed to be
amended by the inclusion tlrrein of the said provision
for amending the enactment".
The Government of the State of Bombay issued on September
5, 1958 a notification under s. 3(4) of the Commissioners of Divisions Act, conferring and imposing on the Commissioners concerned the powers and duties under the enactments specified therein
and for that purpose added to and specified in the Schedule to that
Act certain adaptations and modifications in those enactments by
way of amendment. In the Land Acquisition Act, in s. 4(1) after
the words "appropriate Government" the words "or the Commissioner" were inserted, and in s. 6(l)(a) after the words "appropriate
Government" the words "or, as the case may be, the Commissioner" will be inserted.
It is unnecessary to consider the elaborate arguments which
were presented before the High Court that ss. 3 (3) and 3(4i of
the Commissioners of Divisions Act 8 of 1958 constituted excessive delegation of legislative power to the State Government result·
tina in abdication of the functions of the State Legislature, and
we~e on that account invalid.
This Court has in A mold Rodricks
& Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.(') by majoritiy held that
the powers conferred by s. 3 ( 4) ~n the State Goverm11~nt& are not
u,nguided and that the S~ate Legislature has by. enactm~ s. 3(~)
not -abdicated its powers m favour o,f the execut1v«, for It has laid
(1) (1966] 3 S.C.R. 885.
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. M. CHINA! V. GUJARAT (Shah, ].)
913
down the legislative policy and has left it to the State Government
to reorganise the administration. consequent on the setting up of
Conuniss10ners Divisions.
The challenge to the vires of the
Conunissioners of Divisions Act 8 of 1958 must fail.
The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division, exercising
powers as an officer of the State of Bombay. But after the notification was issued, the State of Bombay was reorganized and the
area in which the land is situated was included in the new State of
Gujarat. The Commissioner of Baroda Division was competent
to exercise the powers under the Commissioners of j:)ivisions Act
which continued to remain in force in the new State of Gujarat in
respect of the Land Acquisition Act and had on that account
power to issue a notification under s. 6 of the Act. The notification
under s. 4 was issued by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Division,
who was competent to issue it in the set-up then in existence and
the Commissioner competent to
issue the notification under
s. 6 had issued that notification. The authority of the Commissioner of the State of Gujarat to issue the notification under
.;ection 6 not being open to challenge, there is nothing in the
Land Acquisition Act or the Commissioners of Divisions Act,
which requires that to invest the notification under s. 6 with
validity, the Commissioner of the State of Gujarat had in
the first instance to issue a notification nnder s. 4 of the Act declaring that the land was needed or was likely to be needed for
any public pnrpose.
Turning to the second contention, the relevant statutory provisions may first be read. Section 77 of the Provincial Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949, insofar as it is relevant, by snb-s. (1)
provides:
"Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Commissioner m:i,y acquire or whenever it is necessary or expedient for any purpose of this Act that the Commissioner shall acqnire, any immovable property, such property may be acquired by the Commissioner on behalf of
the Corporation by agreement on such terms or prices
and at such rates or prices or at rates or prices not ex- .
ceeding such maxima as shall be approved by the Standing Committee either generally for any class of cases or
specially in any particular case."
Section 78(1) provides :
"Whenever the Commissioner is unable under section 77 to acquire by agreement any immovable proPl'rly,
.
.
.
. the Provincial Gcwerliment
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970) 2 S.C.R
may, in its discretion, upon the applica.tion of the Commissioner, made with the approval of the Standing Committee and subject to the oJher provisions of this Act,
order proceedings to be taken, for acquiring the same
on behalf of the Corporation, as if such property ....•
were land needed for a public purpose withi,n the
meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."
There is nothing in ss. 77(1) & 78(1) which supports the contention that before initiatio~ of a proceeding for acquisition of land,
which it is necessary or expedient for any purpose of the Municipal
Act to be acquired, the Commissioner of the Municipality must
start negotiations for purchase by private agreement, and if he is
unable to so purchase the land the State Government may be moved for acquiring the land for the Municipality, and not otherwise.
Exercise of p0•ver to move the State under s. 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, to acquire land is not conditioned by any such limitation as suggested by counsel for the
appellant.
The opening clause of s. 78(1) merely indicates an
alternative and not a condition. Even if no attempt is made under
s. 77 to acquire the land by agreement, it is .open to the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation with the approval of the
Standing Committee and subject to the other ·provisions of the Act,
to move the Provincial Government to take steps for acquisition
of the land.
By statutory provision, it is expressly enacted that
where the purpose is one for which the Commissioner of the Municiapality may require the land under the provisions of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, or is a purpose of tbe
Act for which it is deemed necessary or expedient by the Commissioner of the Municipality to acquire the land, such a purpose
shall be regarded as a public purpose within the meaning of
s. 4 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, even if it does not fall within
the expression "public purpose" as normally understood.
The High Court was of the view that setting up of a memorial
to Mahatma Gandhi falls within cl. ( 42) of s. 66 of the Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, and therefore within the competence of the Municipal Corporation. Section 66(42) authorises
the; Corporation, in its discretion, to provide from time to time
either wholly or partly, in the matters, inter alia, of any measure
likely to promote public safety, health, convenience or instruction,
and in the view of the High Court "setting up a Samadhi or memorial of the type could be fairly regarded as incidental to the right
and power to give public instruction which is a matter within the
competence of the Municipal Corporation under cl.
( 42)
c.f
s.-66'. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this part
of the case, for, we are clearly of the view that tte notification
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
K, M. CHINA! V. GUJARAT (Shah, J.)
915
under s. 4 of the Land Acquisit_ion Act does not refer to any pμrpose of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, nor is the acquisition for a purpose for which the Commissioner is requi.-ed by the
provisions of t_he Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, to
acquire the land.
The land is needed for setting up a memorial
to Mahatma Gandhi at a place associated with him, and we
regard, because of the universal veneration in which the memory of
Mahatma Gandhi is held in our country, that the purpose was a
public purpose.
Counsel for the appellants has not attempted to
argue that acquisition of land for setting up a memorial to
Mahatma Gandhi at a place which has some association with him
is not a public purpose.
He merely argued that setting up of a
memorial _to Mahatma Gandhi is not ~ purpose for which the Com,
missioner is required by the Provincial Municipal Corporations
Act, 1949, to acquire the land, nor is it a purpose of the Municipality under the Municipal Corporations Act. The purpose of acquisition being one which falls within the normal connotation of
the expression "public purpose" within th.~ meaning of s. 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, it is unnecessary to rely upon the extended
meaning of the expression "public purpose" as provided by s. 78(1)
of the Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
It was urged that municipal funds were, contrary to the provisions of the Provincial Municipal Corpo:ations Act, 1949, intended to be utilised for setting up a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi.
But we are not concerned in the present case to determine whether
if the funds are utilised, they will be lawfully utilised : that is a
matter which is not wiihin the periphery of the inquiry in this
appeal. The land is being acquired for a purpose which is a public purpose, and once that condition is fulfilled no further inquiry
need be made, whether if the municipal funds are to be utilised for
setting up a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi after the land is vested
in the State after acquisition, the Municipality will be acting within
the limits of its authority.
We may observe that a notification
issued under s. 6 is by sub-s. (3) conclusive evidence that the land
is needed for a public purpose.
The Land Acquisition Act does not provide that the instrumentality which is to carry out the purpose musrbe set out in the notifications under ss. 4 & 6 of the Act. The Gujarat High Court in
Special Civil Application No. 800 of 1961.
Chandulal Patel v.
The State of Gu)arat-held that if the public purpose for which
land is notified for acquisition is to be executed through "an instrumentalitv other than the State Government." failure 10 5Decifically mention "the instrumentality" in the notifications rencers
th~ notification invalid. But i~ Ramii Popatbhai v.
Jamnadas
S/nh(') a Full Bench of the High Court has overruled that e:irfier
(I) (1969) Guj. L.R. 164.
L5ln C.L/70-13
916
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 2 S.C.R.
judgment. In Vishnu Prasad Ramdas Gohil & Others v. The State
A
of Gujarat(') we have held, agreeing with the view of the Full
Bench of the Gujarat High Court, that failure to specify the instrumentality which is to execute th_e public purpose does not affect
the validity of the notification either under s. 4 or under "· 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act.
There is no substance in the argument that the Commissioner,
Baroda Division, did not apply his mind in issuing the notification
under s. 6. The land notified for acquisition under s. 4 was 3428
sq. yards 3 sq. ft. out of Survey No. 348B, and 494 sq. yards 5
sq. ft. out of Survey No, 349. The area of the land notified under
s. 6 was stated to be 3562 sq. yards out of Survey No. 348B and
387 sq. yards out of Survey No. 349. Even though the area of land
out of Survey No. 348B exceeded the area originally mentioned in
the notification under s. 4, the Commissioner stated in the impugned
notification that "the remaining area of the said lands notified under
section 4 .. · .. is hereby abandoned". It was urged that there was
no "remaining area" of the land out of 5urvey No. 348B which
could be abandoned and the recital indicated that the Commissioner
did not apply his mind to the relevant materials on which the notification was to be issued. It is, however, to be noticed that the
entire Survey No. 348B was not notified for acquisition : only a
part of the land was notified for acquisition under the notification
under s. 4. Under that notification. 3428 sq. yards 3 sq. ft. were
notified, but the notification under s. 6 the declaration related to
3562 sq. yards. Under the notification under s. 6 it was recited
that the remaining area of the land out of Survey No. 348B was
declared as not likely to be needed for a public purpose. The use
of the expression "the remaining area of the said lands notified
under section 4 ...... is hereby abandoned" does not justify an
B
c
D
E
inference that the Commissioner did not apply his mind. It may
be reasonably inferred that it was intended to be coriveyed thereby·
F
that a part of the land out of Survey No. 348B which was not needed for a public purpose was excluded from the notification.
The appeal fails and is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
,(!) C.A. No. 1983 of 1966 decided on Oct. 9 1%9.
J