STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. versus PATEL CHATURBHAI NARSIBHAI & ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 21-01-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
I 
' 
• 
'. 
284 
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR . .. 
v. 
.. 
·. PATEL CHATURBHAl NARSIBHAI & ORS. 
Jamiar)' 21, 1975 
· R 
C J H R KHANNA AND P. K. OoswAMr, JJ.] 
[A. N. 
AY, 
• • , 
• 
• 
. 
. 
, . 
A 
mrmlrd bv Lm!tl AcqulsiltOII (Gujarat Um{icario" 
B 
Land Acqmsft1on 
ct, as3a ~t>ctions '39, 40 ami 41 and Land Acquisition 
o11d .Amc~1dmem) Ac!·l9f~1;1
1.! 4-Acqtdsitloll of la11d for a company-£11quiry 
(Con.lpmw:s) .Rctlt>s, 196·1· pp/i ·e~rioll by compma• ro Gol·emment for acquisition 
by Collector m uspccl 0 a 
t 
b 1 
d. 
· 
. of land-Land owtze-r, if tmitfctl to " lear • 
. 
. . 
1 1960 there was a r.;qucst by the responJ-.:nt }~aroda Industrial- De:•elopmcnt 
~ralio~ (the compnny) ro the State for ncqumng Jan~ _f9r expansaon of th~ 
Corp · I c 
t 
r the romp"'nv 
Tht: Special Lnnd AcqUJsltton Officer, Baroda, 
JndusltJa .r.:.stn c o 
'-' 
" 1 • 
h 1 d 
d · l · 
C 
ex ressed the opinion that th~: acqui~ition w;tS ncce~ .. ary ns t e an .was a JO nmg 
p 
. 
. d 1 d r the Cump•tn\' :mJ th It \\'US the only lund nvntlable. There 
the occuple . aynbyotiJ~ Stat' (j;,·cr~n1 .. nt ~mdcr Rule 4 of the Lnnd Acqui-;ition 
wa5 an enqu1r 
40 
• 
• 
~; 
~ 
• 
h 
'fi t' 
·•"t d 4 
(Companies) 
Rules. The c:nquiry \\Wi h::1d pnor to t e nou ca ton u .. e 
.March, 1961. 
There was an asret:ment between the State 
Gov~rnment and the Company. 
Tbi5 ugrcement was aher the Swre Go\'crnment had g1ven consent to the ocqui,i· 
lion. lhe notifiication under s. 4 w~s. however, cnncellcd on 28 September, 19$6. 
D 
On 29 5-~ptembcr, J)l56, thc:re was n fresh notification under s. 4 of the Act. 
Subsequent to t1tat nolltic::aion there was nn enqt1iry under s. S~A of the Act. The 
respondent, \·iz.. the ownc:r of th.: lunJ Jiled oh)tctinn~. There wn.s n report on J l 
Decemb.!r, 1968 on that enquir~· liiHkr ~. 5-A of the Act thut the land sought 
to b: acquired was s~it4b:(' tu: th~ comp;wy and w::e<J not in excess o( its require· 
men~ 
• 
On January lit ! %9 there Wil"i 
~~ nolifkution unJer ~. 6 of the t\cl. Along 
?tith the notifle1tion unJt:r s. 6 ot :he Act an asrcement dated 13 January. 1969 
E. 
. f?etween the cornplny anJ the Sto.t~ n~ conlemplatc:J in s. 41 of th: Act wa~ putr 
}~shed on 18 Junuary, l')fj~ . 
Tit.: ,·<!sp.:mt.lcnt land owner challenB!!d the notifica-
tions undur ss. 4 :tnd 6 a( the Ac~. The Hi~h Courr ullowed 1he petition. 
Thi~ 
appe:tl has b;:en prdencJ by c;:rtJ{kate {!ra n!d by the High Court. 
On behalf of the Sl;.!e it w·a~ co t 
,j •.I 
11 
h 
· 
holding that the notHkMico u~d~!r •n e6n cf 
~ :1t t e ~i1gh Colt;l wns wrong in 
- The enquiry under r. 4 ;~ n 
1 : . ·_ . 0 
t ~ ,Act '"M bad for th~~e reason,. 
not 
t'tl d 
b h . 
. 
n lh sll.lll~lHithe enqutry ~nd the owner of rh .. l'lnJ is 
F 
en 1 e lo : 
l!ard m th 't •nq~ir\' s, 
d h 
. 
. 
" • 
Act is subjecth·e und h t'orm~,f "0 
th · · h , ~co~ · ~ I! sarnf<•C!!on u ndcr ~. 4 of ~he 
coorJuctl!d Ulllcr r 4 
·rhiru th n 
c. l\t~ 0 th•!. rcpun pur~uant to an enqmry 
of the Comj):my. u'nd: lht"rcfo~e. : enqth•rr un.:1c.r r. 4 is to d~tcrmine thl! bonnlide& 
fleard. Fourth. ofh:r the r~nc 11 
1
1~r;·:'c e~q ~rr~ the o~ n~r ot the lund need not be 
not inue n notifkation under ~ ~ · ~! r. . 1o; m:tJ.i! th·: Gov~rnmt:nt mJy or may 
person concerned ,·jz. th~ 0 , n~ · f Flflh. If o ~Ot1ficul1on under s. 4 i~ i~sued the 
of l~e ,.t.ct to mal>e ~bjcctio~~. r Fi ~~f .JuhJ Will ~l!:t Hn Oflf'or!Un!tr unJc~ S: 5-A 
c:nquuy.fn uerci-,c or execu!ive ow fli.l > • t. c enqt.ury. undc,or r. 4 .t'i a preflmm:uy 
!Ill opmron for or :!i<airnc,t the i .. ~u;n er. f TtJs~li~'1Q !-IIrv ''for c<JIII!ctm: datn to form 
G 
mg d:ua the que1tion of \'iol;,tin" iJ g 0 . 'Lott ~~.af10n. In ~u~h cnqurry for collccl• 
• ny riG•th of th-: land owner doe' not arise. 
Rl!jecting the cont.:nlion• und di. n ; .· • a. 
HEJ 0 
Th 
' 1 '"tng t,e llflf'ltul 
; • 
: 
e enquiry ll!''ll..lcr r 4 h 
• 
iu~~:t;
1~;~0~·:'crs t~;r 't·.! Co;nna~ .. ,?h'~~ ~~ ... ~}~~ 
1fo11~ctor h ro ~ubn1ir a 
r~rort 
. price nod tu~h ~k
0"1 y,.h ' .t 1; . per'lon~ ·inh:r~~~~~d ~.;• •fi!~roson:Jbl~ C!fTort1 to Bet :>uch 
ot the land 
h' h o_r ~ 
OJ\C: .ule:J. Th"' per'lon · er~ 0 on rnrm~nt of r~a'ionablc: 
h:111 to ~how ~h 'f 11 a• rro~o\ed lo b: u.~:quirc-d. ,ThleC~tcrJ th.:rein ttr~ the ow'1~r!l II 
ow 
f b 
~ le c:omn;~ny made ne~oti&t' 
e-
ompnny n~ .such nn enamry 
or~rs 0 t e l~nd are .. therdort. tOiitltd 10
10" .. ' wirh the owners ot the Jand. The 
P P se of pro~tnt or d•~rro\'ing the rca~nub? .. heard ur 

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