GUJARAT STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ETC. versus VALJI MULJI SONEJI AND ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 03-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
905 
GUJARAT STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ETC. 
A 
v. 
V ALJI MULJI SONEJI AND ORS. 
May 3, 1979 
[D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 4 am! 6-Validity of Section 6 Notifi-
cation atruck down by the Supremt Court after 13 years of legal battle inter· 
partt~onsequent to the decision second notification under Section 6 issued 
Ml J()..10-1967 after giving frtsh notice under Section 5A and personal h'!aring 
of the parties-Whether the second notificatio11 is hit by the postulate that "every 
statutory power n1ust be exercised reasonabl_v"-E!Ject of the Land Acquisition 
(Amendment and Validation) Act 1967 introducing amendments to Secrion 4(2) 
and proviso to Section 6. 
Legtil Rcprt·:.entatives to be brought on record-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-
Jlaking an application under Order XXII Rule 10 instead of under Order ),:XXL 
Rule 4 · i.f not correct. 
A suit (No. 1262/53) challenging the notification under Section 4 •)f the 
Land. Acquisition Act dated 10-10-1952 issued by the former Governml!nt of 
Bombay and later another notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 14-8-1953 
(issued· during the pendency of the suit), notifying that the final plots Nos. 41. 
42 and 43 were requited for public purpose viz. State Transport-was dismissed 
by the Trial Court on 28-1-1959. The first and the second 
appeals having 
g: 
c 
failed, the respondents came up to this Court. This c:ourt in its 
decision 
E 
inter partes, Valii Bliai's case struck down Section 6 notification on the ground 
that the acquisition being for the benefit of a Corporation, though for a _ryublic 
purpose was bad because no part of the compensation was to come out of the 
public revenue and the provisions of Part VII of the Act had not been com-
plied with. 
After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bombay, the land acquisition 
p 
proceedings came· within the cognizance of Gujarat State. The State by its 
letter dated. 22~8-1966 decided to contribute towards compensation a sum of 
Re. ] /- which was subsequently raised to Rs. 500 /-. The Government felt 
that as long time has elapsed since the earlier report under Section 5A was 
submitted by the Collector, a fresh enquiry should be made. 
Accordingly the 
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice dated 1-8-1966 inti~ 
mating to the respandents that if they so desired they might submit their further 
G . 
objections on or before 16-8-1966. Complying with this notice, the respondents 
submitted further objections on 31-8-1966 and they were also given a personal 
hearing. After examining the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, 
the Government of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 6 on 10-10-1967. 
The respondents questioned the validity and legality of this notification in 
the writ petition filed by them on 14-2-1968 on the only ground that it was 
H: 
issued more than 15 years after the date of Section 4 notification. The lligh 
Court was of the opinion that if the power to make a declaration under Section 
2-409 SCI /79 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1979] 3 S.C.R. 
1!I. 
6 is exercised after an unreasonable delay from the date on which notification 
under Sei..:tion 4 is issued such exercise of power would be invalid and it according-
ly struck do\vn the notification under Section 6 of the Act. 
Hence the two 
appeiils one by the State of Gujarat and the other by the Ciujarat S:ate Road 
Tran~port Corporation. 
B 
Allov.'ing the appeals by certificate, the Court 
JfELD : 1. The impugned section 6 notification was issued \vithin the pres· 
cribed period introduced by the 1967 Amendment Act and, therefore could 
not be struck down on the only ground that the power to issue second section 
6 notification 'vas exercised after an unrcasonablC and unexplained 
delay. 
Section 6 notification, dated 10th October 1967, therefore is valid and legal. 
C 
[918G-H, 919A] 
2. A combined reading of the prov1s1ons contained in sub-section (2) 
of 
Se<:tion 4 with the one contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sectioe 
6 introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and 
ValidatioR) 
Act, 
(Central Act 13 of 1967) with effect from 20-1-1967 would make it clear that 
the Government would be pr~cluded from making a declaration under section 
D 
6 after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of issue of a notif
1
-
cation under Section 4 which may be issued after the Amendment Act can1e 
into force. 
l\.nd in r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.