GULABRAO KESHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 01-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

GULABRAO KESHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
DECEMBER 1, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Articles 166(1) and (2}-Land Acquisition Act 
1894-Section 5A(l) and (2), 4(1), (6)-Ru/es of business-Ru/es 15, 33, 12, 
13, Instmctions 4, 9, JO, Part II-Land acquisition-Notification under section 
A 
B 
c 
4( l) published-Objections of claimants submitted-Enquiry of Land Ac-
quisition Officer .conducted and report submitted to State Govern-
ment-Revenue Department, referring to objections and to revenue circular, 
deciding that acquisition proceedings cannot be sanctioned-Ministry of 
Urban Development disagreeing with Ministry of Revenue-Dispute referred D 
to Chief Ministe,-Meanwhile, .'l.evenue Depwtment communicating decision 
to LAO for appropriate action -whether decision of Revenue Department 
fmal w1d constitutes decision of appropriate government-Held, before an 
order or action can bind governmen~ it must be drawn in the name of Gover-
. nor as envisaged in Article 166 read with the Rules of Business and must be 
communicated to affected perso1i-Held, fwther, Rules of Business entitles E 
two depllltments to deal with land acquisition and valuation-lnstmctions, 
which are integral part of Rules of Business and have constitutional force to 
supplement rules, require that when two Ministers .are not in agreement, subject 
should be submitted to Chief Minister for decision after placing it before 
Council or Cabine1'-No decision having been so taken, held, no decision was 
taken to proceed further under Section 6 or to drop acquisition proceed-
ings-Articles 163, 164, 167-Town Planning Act, Section 78. 
F 
Constitution of India-Articles 164, 166, 167, 163-lmplied power of 
Chief Minister vis-a-vis subject allotted to Ministei-Held, responsibility to the 
Governor and accountability to people collectively by Council of Ministers is G 
through and by the Chief Ministei-£Jecision of Minister under Rules of 
Business not final or conclusive until requirements under Article 166 are 
complied witli-Held, further, Chief Minister has implied power to examine 
w1d take any decision or action though the subject allotted to a Ministe,-Co/-
/ective Responsibility-C/1ief Ministei--1?.ules of Business. 
H 
97 
A 
B 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
Proceedings for acquisition of land for relieving parting and traffic 
congestion near Surat railway station were initiated in 1992. Notice under 
Section SA was issued, and the appellants objected to the acquisition. The 
Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) conducted enquiry under Section SA(l) 
and submitted the report to the government for appropriate decision. A 
dispute thereafter arose between the Revenue Department and the Urban 
Development Department. The Section Officer of the Revenue Department, 
wrote that, taking into consideration the objection submitted by the ac-
count:holder and considering the legal position, as also a revenue circular, 
notification under Section 6 could not be sanctioned. The Ministry of 
Urban Development disagreed. Consequently, the Chief Minister was 
C moved to re-examine the issue. The Section Officer of the Revenue Depart-
ment, however, communicated its decision to the LAO for further action. 
No action having been taken in that behalf, the appellants approached the 
High Court under Article 226. The High Court held that the government 
had not taken a decision under Section SA (2) and dismissed the petition. 
D 
The question for consideration before this Court was whether the 
appropriate government could be held to have taken a decision on the 
objections raised by the claimants. 
It was contended for the appellants that under Role lS of the 
E 
Business Rules, the competent authority to take the decision for acquisi-
tion of land is the Department of Revenue, and the Minister for Revenue 
having approved the proposal sent up by the Revenue Department not to 
take further action under Section 4(1), the government has taken a 
decision under its Business Rules not to proceed with the acquisition. 
F 
For the government it was contended that the Urban Development 
Department had taken a decision that the land was needed for the stated 
public purpose, and acquisition was necessary. The decision of the 
Revenue Department, it was urged, was not final, and in the conflict 
between two departments, the matter required to be referred to the Chief 
G Minister, and it required the consideration o

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