# STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR v. ·. PATEL CHATURBHAl NARSIBHAI & ORS - **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 284 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1975 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1508 · of 1971 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-gujarat-anr-v-patel-chaturbhal-narsibhai-ors-6715 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote l I ' • '. 284 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR . .. v. .. ·. PATEL CHATURBHAl NARSIBHAI & ORS. Jamiar)' 21, 1975 · R C J H R KHANNA AND P. K. OoswAMr, JJ.] [A. N. AY, • • , • • . . , . A mrmlrd bv Lm!tl AcqulsiltOII (Gujarat Um{icario" B Land Acqmsft1on ct, as3a ~t>ctions '39, 40 ami 41 and Land Acquisition o11d .Amc~1dmem) Ac!·l9f~1;1 1.! 4-Acqtdsitloll of la11d for a company-£11quiry (Con.lpmw:s) .Rctlt>s, 196·1· pp/i ·e~rioll by compma• ro Gol·emment for acquisition by Collector m uspccl 0 a t b 1 d. · . of land-Land owtze-r, if tmitfctl to " lear • . . . 1 1960 there was a r.;qucst by the responJ-.:nt }~aroda Industrial- De:•elopmcnt ~ralio~ (the compnny) ro the State for ncqumng Jan~ _f9r expansaon of th~ Corp · I c t r the romp"'nv Tht: Special Lnnd AcqUJsltton Officer, Baroda, JndusltJa .r.:.stn c o '-' " 1 • h 1 d d · l · C ex ressed the opinion that th~: acqui~ition w;tS ncce~ .. ary ns t e an .was a JO nmg p . . d 1 d r the Cump•tn\' :mJ th It \\'US the only lund nvntlable. There the occuple . aynbyotiJ~ Stat' (j;,·cr~n1 .. nt ~mdcr Rule 4 of the Lnnd Acqui-;ition wa5 an enqu1r 40 • • ~; ~ • h 'fi t' ·•"t d 4 (Companies) Rules. The c:nquiry \\Wi h::1d pnor to t e nou ca ton u .. e .March, 1961. There was an asret:ment between the State Gov~rnment and the Company. Tbi5 ugrcement was aher the Swre Go\'crnment had g1ven consent to the ocqui,i· lion. lhe notifiication under s. 4 w~s. however, cnncellcd on 28 September, 19$6. D On 29 5-~ptembcr, J)l56, thc:re was n fresh notification under s. 4 of the Act. Subsequent to t1tat nolltic::aion there was nn enqt1iry under s. S~A of the Act. The respondent, \·iz.. the ownc:r of th.: lunJ Jiled oh)tctinn~. There wn.s n report on J l Decemb.!r, 1968 on that enquir~· liiHkr ~. 5-A of the Act thut the land sought to b: acquired was s~it4b:(' tu: th~ comp;wy and w::ee ~bjcctio~~. r Fi ~~f .JuhJ Will ~l!:t Hn Oflf'or!Un!tr unJc~ S: 5-A c:nquuy.fn uerci-,c or execu!ive ow fli.l > • t. c enqt.ury. undc,or r. 4 .t'i a preflmm:uy !Ill opmron for or :!iuch ot the land h' h o_r ~ OJ\C: .ule:J. Th"' ## Text l I ' • '. 284 STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR . .. v. .. ·. PATEL CHATURBHAl NARSIBHAI & ORS. Jamiar)' 21, 1975 · R C J H R KHANNA AND P. K. OoswAMr, JJ.] [A. N. AY, • • , • • . . , . A mrmlrd bv Lm!tl AcqulsiltOII (Gujarat Um{icario" B Land Acqmsft1on ct, as3a ~t>ctions '39, 40 ami 41 and Land Acquisition o11d .Amc~1dmem) Ac!·l9f~1;1 1.! 4-Acqtdsitloll of la11d for a company-£11quiry (Con.lpmw:s) .Rctlt>s, 196·1· pp/i ·e~rioll by compma• ro Gol·emment for acquisition by Collector m uspccl 0 a t b 1 d. · . of land-Land owtze-r, if tmitfctl to " lear • . . . 1 1960 there was a r.;qucst by the responJ-.:nt }~aroda Industrial- De:•elopmcnt ~ralio~ (the compnny) ro the State for ncqumng Jan~ _f9r expansaon of th~ Corp · I c t r the romp"'nv Tht: Special Lnnd AcqUJsltton Officer, Baroda, JndusltJa .r.:.stn c o '-' " 1 • h 1 d d · l · C ex ressed the opinion that th~: acqui~ition w;tS ncce~ .. ary ns t e an .was a JO nmg p . . d 1 d r the Cump•tn\' :mJ th It \\'US the only lund nvntlable. There the occuple . aynbyotiJ~ Stat' (j;,·cr~n1 .. nt ~mdcr Rule 4 of the Lnnd Acqui-;ition wa5 an enqu1r 40 • • ~; ~ • h 'fi t' ·•"t d 4 (Companies) Rules. The c:nquiry \\Wi h::1d pnor to t e nou ca ton u .. e .March, 1961. There was an asret:ment between the State Gov~rnment and the Company. Tbi5 ugrcement was aher the Swre Go\'crnment had g1ven consent to the ocqui,i· lion. lhe notifiication under s. 4 w~s. however, cnncellcd on 28 September, 19$6. D On 29 5-~ptembcr, J)l56, thc:re was n fresh notification under s. 4 of the Act. Subsequent to t1tat nolltic::aion there was nn enqt1iry under s. S~A of the Act. The respondent, \·iz.. the ownc:r of th.: lunJ Jiled oh)tctinn~. There wn.s n report on J l Decemb.!r, 1968 on that enquir~· liiHkr ~. 5-A of the Act thut the land sought to b: acquired was s~it4b:(' tu: th~ comp;wy and w::ee ~bjcctio~~. r Fi ~~f .JuhJ Will ~l!:t Hn Oflf'or!Un!tr unJc~ S: 5-A c:nquuy.fn uerci-,c or execu!ive ow fli.l > • t. c enqt.ury. undc,or r. 4 .t'i a preflmm:uy !Ill opmron for or :!iuch ot the land h' h o_r ~ OJ\C: .ule:J. Th"' per'lon · er~ 0 on rnrm~nt of r~a'ionablc: h:111 to ~how ~h 'f 11 a• rro~o\ed lo b: u.~:quirc-d. ,ThleC~tcrJ th.:rein ttr~ the ow'1~r!l II ow f b ~ le c:omn;~ny made ne~oti&t' eompnny n~ .such nn enamry or~rs 0 t e l~nd are .. therdort. tOiitltd 10 10" .. ' wirh the owners ot the Jand. The P P se of pro~tnt or d•~rro\'ing the rca~nub? .. heard ur such an enquiry tor the e effort'S of the company to get such A n c D E F G H GUJARAT v. CHATURBHAI (Ray, C.J.) 285 land by neaotiation. The contention on behalf of the Stale that the owners of the land wil aet an opportunity when an enquiry is made under s. 5-A of the Act is equally unsound. S. 17 of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may direct that the provjsions'of s. 5-A shall not apply, and if it does so direct a declaration may be made under s. 6 at any time after the publication of the notification under s. 4 of the Act. Therefore the enquiry under s. 5-A may not be held. [287 H-288] · · · The nature of objections under rules framed in pursuance of the power~ conferred by s. 55 of the Act shows that the matters which are to be enquired into under r. 4, and in particular, that the Company made all efforts to get such land by negotiation with the persons interested thereon on payment of price and such efforts failed is not one of the objections which can be preferred in an enquiry · under s. 5-A. It is true that in the present case there was an enquiry under s. S-A of the Act but the enquiry was also before the agreement between the State and the Company under s. 41 of th~ Act and without any enquiry under s. 40 of the Act to enable the Government to give its consent. In view of the Gujarat Amendment Act, 1963, deleting the words "either of the report of the Collector under s. S-A of sub-s. (2) or" in sections 40 and 41 of the Act, the enquiry under s. 5-A is not an enquiry within the meaning of s. 40 of the Act. [288 E-Gt 28!> B-F] R. L. Arora v. State of U.P. [1962] ·2 Supp. S.C.R. 149, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1508 · of 1971. From the Judgment and Order dated the 30th March 1971, of the Gujarat High Court in Spl. C. Appln. No. 622 of 1969. R. H. Dhebar and M. N. Shroff, f~r the appellants. (. N. Shroff, for respondent Nos. 1R3. M. C. Bhandare and Urmila Sirur, for respondent no. 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R~Y, C.J. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether the notifications dated 29 September. 1965 and 18 January, 196? issued ·under sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act hereinafter referred to as the Act are lawful. In 1960 there was a request by the respondent Baroda Ind~trial ' Development Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Company to the State for acquiring land for expansion of the Industrial Estate of the Company. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda e:t· pressed the opinion that the acquisition \Yas necessary as the land was adjoining the occupied land of the Company and that was the only land available. On 4 MarchJ 1961 there was a notification under section 4 of the Act. On 22 August, 1961 there was an agreement between the State Government and the Company in accordance with the provisions contained in section 41 of the Act. It may be stated here that the decision of this Court in R. L . Arora v. State of U.P.(li) was that in case of acquisition for a Com· pany, the Government could give its C9nsent if the acquisition was neempany has made its best endeavour to find out lands in the locality suitable for the purpose of the acquisition; (2) that the company has made all reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed; (3) that the land proposed to be acquired is suitable for the purpose; ( 4) that the area of land, pro,posed to be acquired is not excessive; ( 5) that the Company is in a position to utilise the land expeditiously; and ( 6) where the land proposed to be acquired is good agricultural land, that no alternative suitable site can be found so as to avoid acquisition of that land. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 aforesaid further provides that the Collector shall, after giving the Company a reasonable opportunity· to make any representation in this behalf, bold an enquiry into the matters referred to above. The Collector under sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 aforesaid shall submit a n~port to the appropriate Government. Sub-rule ( 4) of Rule 4 aforesaid provides that no declaration shall be made by the appropriate Government under section 6 of the Act unless ( i) the appropriate Government has consulted the committee and has considered the report under this Rule and the report, if any, submitted under Section 5·A of the Act; and (li) the agreement under section 41 of the Act has been executed by the Company. . Gujarat Act 20 of 1965 came into effect on 9 July, 1965. By section 18 of the Gujarat Act called the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Uni1kation and Amendment) Act, section 39 of the Act was amended. ~he result o~ the amenGm~nt of. section 39 of the Act is that the provisiOns of sect10n.s 4 to 3 7 mcluslVe of the Act cannot be put into force unless the pr1~VIous consent of .the appropriate Government is obtained :.md unless tbe Company has executed an agreement mentioned in sec· tions foll0wing section 39 of the Act. In the pres~nt case there was an enquiry by the State Government un~er Rule 4 of .the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules. The enq.mry was held prror to the notification dated 4 March, 1961 under'sectlon 4 of the Act. On 22 August, 1961 there was an agreement between the State Government and the Company. This agreement was after the State Government had given consent to the acquisition. On A B c D E F G H A B c 0 E F G H GUJARAT v. CHATURBHAI (Ray, C.J.) 287 4 November, 1961. the notification under section 4 of the Act was corrected with regard. to the survey numbers. The notification under section 4 of the Act dated 4 March/4 November, 1961 was however cancelled on 28 September, 1965. On 29 September, 1965 there was a fresh notification under sec-· tion 4 of the Act. Subsequent to that notification there was an enquiry under section 5-A of the Act. The respondent, viz., the owner of the land filed objections. There was a report on 11 December, 1968 on that enquiry under section 5-A of the Act that the land sought to be acquir~d was suitable for the company and was nor in excess of the mquirements. On 18 January, 1969 there was a notification under section 6 of the Act. Along with the notification under section 6 of the Act an agreement dated 13 January 1969 between the company and the State as contemplated in section 41 of the Act was published on 18 J nnu:-~ry 1969. . The respondent land owner challenged the notification dated 29 September, 1965 under section 4 of the Act as well as 1he notification under section 6 of the Act dated 18 January, 1969. The High Court accepted the contention of the re.sponde~t that the enquiry co~templat cd under rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules had not been held lawfully, and, therefore, the notification under section 6 of the Act was illegal. The reason given by the High Court was that the enquiry under rule 4 contemplated giving opportunity to the owner of the land to make effective representation against the proposed acquisition. The High Court held that the enquiry under rule 4 was bad because no opportunity had been given to the owners of the land. On behalf of the State it was contended that the High Court was wrong in holding that the notification under section 6 of the Act was bad br these reasons. The enquiry under rule 4 is an administrative enquiry and the owner of the land is not entitled to be heard in that enquiry. Second, the satisfaction under section 4 of the Act is subjective and is formed on the basis of the report pursuant to an enquiry conducted under rule 4. Third, the enquiry under rule 4 is to deter- . mine the bonafides of the Company, and, therefore, in such enquiry the owner of the land need not be heard. Fourth, after the report under rule 4 is made the Government may or may not issue a notification under section 4. Fifth, if a notification under section 4 is issued the person concerned viz, the owner of the land will get an opportunity under section 5-A of the Act to make objection. Finally, the enquiry under Rule 4 is a preliminary enquiry in exercise of executive power. This enquiry is for collecting data to form an opinion for or against the issuing of notification. In such enquiry for collecting data the qtrcstion of violating any rights of the land owner does not arise. The contention of the State that the enquiry under rule 4 is administrative and that the owner of the land is not entitled to be given an opportunity to be heard at the enquiry cannot be accepted for these reasons. The enquiry under rule 4 shows that the Collector is to submit a rctport among other matters that the Company bas made all 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975.1 3 s.c.R. reasonable efforts to get such lands by negotiation with the persons interested therein on payment of reasonable price and such efforts have failed. The persons i~terested therein are the owners of the lap.d which is proposed to be acquired. The Company at such an enquiry has to show that the company made negotiations with the owners of the land. The ow11ers of the land are, therefore, entitled to be heard at such an enquiry for the purpose of proving or disproving the reasonable efforts of the company to get suc4 land by negotiation. The contention on behalf of the State that the owners of the land will get an opportunity when an ublishe.d on 1 S January 1969 was subsequent to the notification under sectiot1 4 of the Act, dated 29 September, "1965 and therefore the said notification wns in violation of the provisions contained in section 39 of the Act and therefore invalid. The f;and Acquisition .(Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act, 1963 w]uch amended section 39 of the Central Act enacted that the provisions of sections 4 to 37 inclusive of the Act shall not be put in B c D E F G H c D E F G H (?TJJARAT v. CHATURBHAI (Ray, C.J.) 289 force in order to acquire land for any Company, unless there is pre· vious consent of the State Government or the Company shall have executed the agreement. On behalf of the State it was said that the agre~~ ment in the year 1961 would suffice. This is only to be stated to be rejected because the notification under section 4 o'f. the Act was cancelled by the State on 28 September, 1965. Thereafter fresh proceedings started. FUrther, the agreement in the year 1961 did not survive, because· a fresh agreement was made on 18 January, 1969, which was pubHshed on 18 J anl)ary 1969. The provisions contained in sections 38 to 41 of the Act indicate that the provisions of sections 4 to 3 7 of th_e Act cannot be applied to · acquire land for any company unless the State Government gives previous consent th~reto and the oompany executes ~n agreement with the State as mentioned in section 41 of the Act. .Second1 section 40 of the Act indicates that the. State Government cannot give consent unless there is an enquiry as provided in that section. It is IWticeable that any enquiry under section 5-A of the Act is not an enquiry within the meaning of section 40 of the Act. The reason is that the Gujarat. Amendment Act 1963 being Gujarat Act No. 20 of 1965 deleted the words "either on the report of the Collector under section · 5-A subsection (2) or" from section 40 of the principal Act. Similarly, in section 41 of the Act as a result of the Gujarat Amendment Act the words "either on the reP<>rt of the Collector under section 5-A subsection (2) or'' were 'deleted. The effect of th~ deletion of those words by the Gujarat Amendment Act is that the enquiry under section 5-A is not an enquiry within the meaning of section 40 ()f the Act. In the present case, the enquiry under rule 4 of the Land Acquisi~ tion (Companies) Rules was held before the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued in the year 1965. The enquiry pursuant to the notifications in the year 1961 and previous to the fresh notifications in '1965 is of no effect in law for two principal reasons. First, the 1961 notification was cancelled, and, therefore, all steps taken thereunder became ineffective. Second, the enquiry under rule 4 in 1961 was held without giving opportunity to the land owner rcspon~ dent, and, therefore, the enquiry is invalid in law. The affidavit evidence on behalf of the Government was thnr an enquiry was held under section 40 of the Act in the month of July, 1965 and there was a report on 25 August, 1965. The ~nquiry under section 40 of the Act is equally of no avail for similar r.:::.bous why the enquiry Under Rule 4 in 1961 is of no effect in law. 290 ltUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] ~~ s.c.R. For tht-:se reason~, wr, hold that the a~isition proceedings are vitiated. There was no. compliance with the provisions of se!;tion 39 of the Act. There was no prior agreement between the State and the Company before provisions contained in sections 4 to 37 were put into force. The. enquiry under section S·A of the Act in the pr~~ent case~ does not satisfy the provisions contained in_ rule 4 of the Companies Acquisition Rules. The owners of the land are entitled to opportunity of being heard in an enquiry under rule 4 and enquky under section 40 of the Act. No such. opportunity was given to the owners. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismiss~d. The State will pay costs to Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. V.M.K. · Appeal dismissed. B c