PARSHOTTAM JADAVJI JANI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 01-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

294 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• F 
PARSHOTfAM JADAVJI JANI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. 
April l, 1971 
IS. M. SIKRI, c. J., G. K. MITTER, K. s. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.J 
Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), ss. SA and 55-Rules framed regc,. 
lating enquiry under s. SA-Complied with-Acquisition for Corporatio:i 
-Right to cross examine ofjicers of Corporation. 
By a notification issued under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
the State Government declared that the appellant's lands were needed for 
the public purpose of constructron of ap Industrial Estate by the Gujarat 
Industrial Development Corporation. The officer on special duty inforn1ed 
the appellant that if he had any objection to the acquisition he might file 
objections on or before a particular date and. that he or his counsel would 
be heard at the time of filing the objections. The appellant filed his objec-
tions and prayed that the officers of the Corporation may be summoned 
for the purpose of cross-examination to show that the proposed acquisition 
was not for a public purpose and that there was no need to acquire his 
land, and that a personal hearing may be granted to him. The hearing 
was fixed for a particular date and the date was extended from time to 
time but the appellant did not appear on those dates nor did he apply for 
any, further extension of time. His written objection were considered by 
the officer and included in his report to the Government under s. SA. 
On the question whether the report was vitiated because the officer 
had not granted an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the offi· 
cers of the Corporation, 
HELD: The question whether the inquiry was administrative or quasi· 
judicial did not arise. Rules had been framed under s. 55 of the Act for 
the guidance of officers dealing with objections under s. SA, and the rules 
had been complied with in the present case. The appellant was given an 
opportunity to be heard personally but he did not choose to avail himself 
of that opportunity. He could not, under the rules, claim to cross-examine 
officers of the Corporation when they had not given any evidence before 
the officer on special duty and there was no principle which entitled the 
appellant to claim such right [297H; 298A-B] 
Gonda/al v. State, (1963) Guj. LR. 326, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1990 of 
1970. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 31, 1970 of 
the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 464 of 
1970. 
H 
P. M. Raval and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
B. Sen and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No. 3. 
PARSHOTTAM v. GUJARAT (Sil<ri, C.J.) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, C. J.-This appeal, by certificate granted by the High 
Court of Gujarat under Art. 132 and Article 133 (!) (c) of the 
Constitution of India, is directed against its judgment and order 
dismissing the present appellant's petition under Article 226 of th~ 
Constitution. 
The appellant is the owner of Survey Nos. 219 /I and 121 
situated on the outskirts of Mahuva in Bhavnagar District. By 
notification dated April 25, 1969, issued under Section 4 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government declared that 
the above-mentioned lands were needed for the public purpose of 
construction of an Industrial Estate by the Gujarat Industrial 
Development Corporation or were likely to 
be needed for 
that purpose. On May 3, 1969 a notice was issued to the appel-
lant by S. 0. Collector, Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, 
informing the appellant that if he had any objection to the acqui-
sition of the lands, he might file objections on or before August 16, 
1969. 
He was further informed that the Officer will hear him or 
his Counsel at the time of filing the objections. The appellant 
filed his objections. He took various points, but we are only con-
cerned with one. He pointed out that the Gujarat Industrial Deve-
lopment Corporation has come out with ambitious projects for the 
establishment of the Industrial estate though, in fact, the land 
already acquired by the Corporation is in excess of the require-
ment of the Corporation. I say that the corporation is not in 
possession of such material as would establish genuineness for the 
establishment of an industrial estate of Mahuva. I, therefore, 
claim that the responsible officer should be cross-examined by me 
for the purpos

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