KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI & ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 17-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

908 
KANAIYALAL MANEKLAL CHINAI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
October 17, 1969 
(J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Commi.uioners of Divisions Act (Bom. Act 8 of 1958) 
ss. 3(3) & 
3(4)-Valtduy of powers giVt!fl to State Governn1ent-Notice under s. 4 
L(~!l1.Acquisition Act (1 of IS94) 
given by Cotn1nissioner Alunedabad 
~tv1s1on ( Bo111bay)-Notice under s. 6 giiJen by Con11nissioner Baroda Divi-
.Holl ~Gujarat)-Va/idity of notice under s. 6-Provilicial Municipal Cor .. 
porat1on Act, 1949-Municipality of A/unedabad requesting State Govern .. 
111e11t to r.cquire land for mernorial to A-tahatn1a Gandhi-Conunissioner in 
acquiring land lVhetlzer nucst follo1v procedr1re in ss. 77 & 
78 of Act-
A1 unicipal purpose and 'public purpose'-Mention of 'instr111nentality' for 
carrying out purpose whether necessary to f,12J<e notices under ss. 4 and 
6 of land Acquisition Act enforceable-Application of n1ind by Commis-
sioner. 
The Ahmodabad Municipal Corporation resolved to move the Govern· 
ment of Bombay State (then undivided) to acquire a part of land belong-
ing to the appellants for setting up a Santadhi of Mahatma Gandhi. The 
Commissioner of Ahmedabad Division acUng under the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894, as an1cnded by the Con1missioncrs of Division Act, 1958. issued 
a notification under s. 4 of the former Act declaring that the land was 
likely to be required for a public purpose. Thereafter the State of Bombay 
\Vas divided and city of Ahmedabad. became pa1t of the State of Gujarat. 
The notice under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the appel· 
Jants' land was issued by the Commissioner, Baroda Division of the State 
of Gujarat who by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was the 
.appropriate authority to do so. 
The appellants moved a petition in the 
High Court of Gujarat for a writ quashing the proceedin_gs t11k 1.::1 under the 
Land Acquisition· Act and restraining the authorities from enforcing the 
notifications under ss. 4 and 6. 
The High .Court re.ie~ted the petition. 
\Vith certificate, an appeal was filed in this G:lurt. The appellants eon-
tcnded: (i) that the Commissioners of Divisions Act, 1958 was ultra vires 
the legislature; (ii) that .the Commissioner Baroda Division was incompe· 
tent ·to issue a notification under s. 6 without issuing a fresh notification 
under s. 4; (iii) that the notifications were defective because ·of non. 
compliance with ss. 77 and 78 of the Provincial Municipal Corporation 
Act, 1949 and because the purpose for which the acquisition was sought 
to be made was not a municipal purpos:::; (iv) that the notifications were 
uncnfdrceable because the "instr~1mcntality" to carry out the purpOse _was 
not set out in the notifications; (v) that the Commissioner had not app)ied 
l1is mind·to the ev"idencc. when i~suin.g the notifica1ion under s. 6. 
HELD: (i) Bccau~c of the decision of this Court in Arnohl Rodericks 
. & A nr. the challenge to the vircs of the Commissioners of Divisions Act, 
1958 on the ground of exCessivc delegation of powers of the State Govern- . 
tnent and abdication of the functions of the Legislature, must fail. [912 G· 
913 A] 
A mold Rodricks & Anr. v. Stc.te of Maharashtr(t & Ors. [1966] 3 S.C.R. 
885 followed ond applied. 
(ii) The notification under s. A. W.?.s 
issued 
by 
the Commissioner 
Ahnredabad Division who was competent to issue it as an officer of the 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
K. M. CHINA! \'. GUJARAT 
90~ 
State of Bombay. The Con1mis~.ioncr of Baroda \\'as competent to cxcrcisi: 
1.he po·n-·ers und~r the Commissioners of Divisions Act which continued to 
remain in force in the new State of Gujarat in respect of the Land Acqui-
sition Act ;,n1d he had on that account po\\·er to issue i notification under 
s. 6 of th!.' Act. 
There \Vas nothing in the Land ,o\cquisifrJn Act or the 
Commissioners of Divisions Act requiring that in order to invest the noti-
fication under s. 6 \\'ith validity, the Commissioner of the State of Gujarat 
h;::J in the first instance to issue a notification under s. 4. [913 B-Ej 
(iii) Exercise of pO\.VCr to move the State under s. 78 of the Provincial 
\lunicipal Cc'rporation Act is not conditioned by a prior attempt at pur-
chase oy agrecm~nt in the manner laid do\\·n in s. 77. The oj)cning, cl~tusc 
of s. 78 merely indicates an alternative and not a con<lition. 
Even if no 
attempt, is n1ad: under 
s. 
77 to acquire the land by agreement. 
it is open to the Co1nmissioncr of 

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