RAMGIR UTTAMGIR GOSWAMI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 776 · Decided: 20-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMGIR lTITAMGIR GOSWAMI 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 
i::.tj·; 
JANUARY 20, 1988 
.!..-· '• ' 
[G.L. OZA AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4 and 6-lntra vires ' 
Constitution of India 1950-Land-Acquisition of-Enlargement of 
village site to house families rendered homeless by floods-Collector/ 
·Survey Officer/ Revenue Aut~ority-Whether must first decide on ques-
C 
tion regarding enlargement of site-Suitability of land-Assessment 
of-To be decided by Land Acquisition Officer-Whether plea of 
exhaustion of 'public purpose' on account of delay in acquisition 
tenable. 
· 
' 
D .. · 
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879: Section 126-Limits of sites 
of villages, towns and cities-Collector/Survey Officer-'-Not necessarily 
to first decide question to enlarge or. vary site before resorting· to 
E 
F 
G 
'·.. 
- ', 
. 
acqu1S1tzon. 
· · 
. . 
.. 
· • 
The lands of the appellant were situated on the banks of the river 'y 
Tapti known for its frequent floods. They were sought to be acquired 
under' the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The preliminary notification 
declaring the intention to acquire the said land was issued under s. 4 of --.... / 
the act and published in the Government Gazette on April 30, 1970. It 
was notified that the proposed acquisition was for the public purpose 
for extension of the village site for the purpose of housing 12 families 
who had been rendered homeless because of floods in the Tapti river. 
\.. ,,. 
An individual notice under s. 4 of the Act was served on the Appellant "T°. 
on May 2, 1970. He filed his objections against the proposed acquisition 
on May 12, 1970 and filed additional objections on June 20, 1970 and 
July 6, 1970 respectively. After the consideration and rejection of the 
said objections, the notification of the lands under s: 6 was issued on 
December 8, 1970. Notices under s. 9 were issued on January 8, 1971. 
The appellant challenged the'~foresaid acquisition i~ a writ peti-
tion in the High Court on various grounds, the main ground being that 
the provisions of ss. 4 and 6 of the Act were ultra vires the Constitution. "( 
The High Court dismissed the petition, but granted a certificate of 
H 
fitness under Article l33(l)(c) oftbe Constitution. 
776 
-
R.U. GOSWAMI v. STATE OF GUJARAT 
777 
l 
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant it was 
A 
conceded: ( l) that the vires of sections 4 and 6 could no longer be called 
r 
in question, hut it was submitted that ( 1) under the provisions of the 
Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 it must be established that the lands 
in the existing village site are insufficient for the extension of the village 
site before any acquisition can be resorted to, (2) the land acquisition 
authorities had failed to consider what were the other lands available 8 
;A 
which could have been more conveniently acquired, and (3) since 
several years have passed from the date of the Notification under s. 4, 
' 
the victims of the floods must have been housed and rehabilitated else-
where and hence the public purpose for which the lands were sought 
'( to be acquired does not survive. 
Dismissing the Appeal the Court, 
c 
HELD: l. The challenge to the vires of sections 4 and 6 of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 no longer survive in view of the validity of 
the sections having been upheld by this Court in Manubhai Jehtalal Patel 
and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and others, 1983 4 sec 553. l778FI 
D 
2. Section 126 of the Botnbay Laud Revenue Code merely deals 
with the limits of the site of any village, town or city and prescribes the 
procedure for fixing the limits of such sites. There is nothing in the 
Bombay Land Revenue Code or the Land Acquisition Act which would 
suggest that before acquisition can be resorted to for enlarging a village E 
site, the Collector or a Survey Officer or Revenue Authority must 
decide upon such enlargement. [78JE-FI 
~ 
Chandrabhagabai Udhaorao and others v. Commissioner, 
~Nagpur Division, Nagpur & Ors., [19621 Nagpur Law Journal, Vol. 
-
XLV at p. 466 and Sitaram Maroti v. State of Maharashtra, 11963] 65 F 
r 
Bombay Law Reporter, 241 distinguished. 
3. The assessment of suitability of the land proposed to be 
acquired for the concerned public purpose is primarily for the Land 
Acquisition Officer to consider, and no good reason has been shown on 
behalf of the appellant which could warrant interference with his deci-
G 
sion. Moreover, the appellant had not even given proper particul

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