KALUMIYA KARIMMIYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 14-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
606 
KALUMIYA KARIMMIYA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
January 14, 1977 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
. l:and Acquisition Act 1894-Secs. 4, SA, 
6-Reasonable opportunity in 
znquzry under sec. SA-Whether collector bound to give copy of the report 
submuted to Government to the owner of land-Effect of not giving the copy-
Delay between sec. 4 & 6 notifications-Effect of-What is 
unreasonable 
delay-Vagueness of s, 4 notification. 
· 
A notification was issued under section 4 ( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act 
~894 ~n 7.6.1966 intending to acquire a total area of 13,900 sq. yds of land 
mc!.udmg 474. sq: yards of the appellant's land in Surat City. After consi-
dermg the obiecl!ons under s. SA a notification under section 6 was issued on 
13.1.1~69. 
_The _appella~t filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging 
the said nolificalio~ which was summarily dismissed. 
Th,\l High Court, how-
ever, grai:ited a ~rllficate ul'l:der Art. 133(1) (b) & (c) of the Constitution on 
the question of vzres of sect10ns 4, SA and 6 of the said Act. 
Appellant contended : 
( 1) In spite of the appellant's request for furnishing a copy of the report 
under s. SA the Collector did not give him a copy and, therefore, he did not 
have adequate and proper hearing under _s. SA. 
(2) There was considerable delay between the notification under sections 
4 and 6. 
· 
(3) Notification under s. 4 does not contain the public purpose 
as 
the 
requirement for "fire station". The 
notification 
merely 
mentions "station 
workshop and parking purpose." 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (1) Ordinarily there should be no difficulty in furnishing a copy 
of the report under s. SA to an object.or when he asks for the same. How-
ever, it is not a correct proposition that hearing under s. Sb is invalid because 
of failure to furnish a copy of the report at the conclusion of the proceeding 
under the said Act. 
[608 F-G] 
(2) A second hearing by the State Government after the report is furnished 
by the Collector is not necessary. 
[608-H] 
Abdul Husein Tayabali & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [1968] (1) SCR 
S97, followed. 
(3) Since other dags of land belonging to numerous persons were the sub-
ject matter of acquisition and individual objections had to be heard there was 
no inordinate delay in making the section 6 notification. Even the appellant 
has not submitted before the High Court a copy of his written objection. Nor 
has the same been produced in this Court with the result that one does 
not 
know how much delay was caused by the appellant himself. )"he delay in the pre-
sent case is about 2t years and there is not even a clear statement of the 
appel\ant about delay to be attributable to the Government. 
[609 B-b] 
( 4) Submission that s. 4 notification does not contain the public purpose is 
·made on the basis of the copy of the notification anne;xed in. the pap_er book. 
Even in the 5tatement of case the appellant has not raised this obiectton. On 
KALUMIYA KARIMMIYA v. GUJARAT (Goswami, J.) 
607 
the other hand it was conceded that the purpose was fire station, 
workshop 
A 
and parking place and the objection was that the appellant's l and was not 
suitable for construction of fire station. [609E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 
2731 
of 
1972. 
(From the Judgment and Order dated 20-11-1970 of the Gujarat 
High Court in Special Appeal No. 1247 /70). 
Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta, for the appellant. 
D. V. Patel and M. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. 
L. N. Sinha, Sol. Genl and Girish Chandra, for respondent No. 2. 
K. C. Vakharia, P. H. Parekh and! Miss Manju Jetley, for respon-
dent No. 3. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GoswAMI, J.-This appeal by certificate under Article 132 (1) (b) 
and ( c) of the Constitution is from the judgment of the Gujarat High 
Court. The certificate was granted on October 21, 1972, 
before 
coming into force of the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) 
Act, 
1972. 
Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant, does not press before 
us the challenge to the validity of sections 4, SA and 6 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. 
We will now state the facts as will appear from the statement of 
case filed on behalf of the appellant. 
A notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acqui-
sition Act, 1894 (briefly the Act) on June 7, 1966, intending to 
acquire a total area of 13900 sq. yds of land including 474 sq. yds. 
of the appella
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.