LexABDUL HUSEIN TAYABALI & ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
597 ·" ABDUL HUSEIN TAYABALI & ORS. 11. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. September 20, .1967. B [J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 189-l, ss. 3(c), 4, 5A and 6-Land Acquisi- tion (Companies) Rules r. 4-Special Land Acquisition Officers autho- rised by general notification to perform functions of collector under the Act-Inquiry and Report under r. 4 by Otlicer on land required bu company-Whether he was 'speciallu appointed' within the mean- ing Qf r. 4-Therefore whether subsequent notifications under s.s. 4 C and 6 valid.-Appellants given opportunitu to represent aga1nat acquisition in s. 5A inquiru-Whether entitled to a further opportu.. nity before issue of s. 6 notification, On October 1. 1963, the State Government issued a notification under section 3(c). authorising one M, who was then the Speclal Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, to perform the functions of a Col- lector and also directed him to hold an enquiry under the Land D Acquisition (Companies) Rules on the application of the third res- pondent company requesting the government to acquire the appel- lant's land. Jn supersession of that notification. the Government issued another notification on October 11, 1963 authorising all Special Land Acquisition Officers to perform the functions of the Collector under the Act \Vithin the area of their respective jurisdiction. After M had made an enquiry under Rule 4, the respondent State Govern- E ment issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on August 28. 1964 in respect of the appellant's land which was stated to be required for the establishment of a factory by the third respondent company. Objections filed by the appellants in an enquiry under s. 5A were rejected and the State Government there- after issued a notification under s. 6 on October 18, 1965. The appel~ !ants challenged the notification by writ petitions but these were dismissed by the High Court. F In the appeal to this Court. it was contended on behalf of the appellants. inter alia, (i) that M was only .a Special Land Acquisition Officer and not the Collector within the meaning of Rule 4; in any event the notification of October 11, 1963 did. not "specially" appoint him but was a general notification authorising all the Special Land Acquisition Officers in the State appointed not only before the date of s. 4 notification but also those who would be appointed in future: G furthermore, the notification did not "appoint" but simply authorised him to perform the functions of the Collector, the State Government had not given any direction to him to make a report as required by Rule 4; therefore the enquiry held by him under that Rule and the report made was invailed and consequently no notification either under s. 4 or s. 6 could be validly issued; (ii) that the s. 6 notification was issued without complying with Part VII of the Act and withou' the valid consent of the State Government as required by s. 39; (Iii) B that the acquisition was made ma!afide and without application of mind to the relevant facts: (iv) that the acquisition did not involve any public purpose: and (v) that the State Government was bound to give. an opportunity of being heard to the appellants before taking a dec1srnn under_ s: ~A particularly when the report made by M was against the acqu1s1hon. 698 Sl'PltEME COCitT REPOI:l'.> [l!JG~j I s.c.r.. HELD: Dismissing the appeal. A. \i) No objection to the appointment of M to perform the func- tions of the Collector under s. 3(c) or to his competence to make the enquiry and the report under Rule 4 or their legality can be validly made. It follows that the consent given by the State Government in initiating acquisition proceedings \\·as validly given and \vas in ccmp- lianoe with the provisions of Part VII of the Act and the State Gov- ernment could validly issue the impugned notifications. [604GJ B. There being nothing repugnant in the subject or context. the word "Collector" must. by virtue of s. 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, have the same meaning in the Rules as in s. 3(c) of the Act which includes an officer specially appointed to perform the functions of the Collector. [602H] The words "specially appointed" simply mean that as a Sp. L.A. c Officer is not a Collec;ior and cannot perform the functions of a Col· lector under the Act. he has to be "specially appointed", i.e. appoint- ed for the specific purp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.