LexSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. versus AMBALAL HAIDERBHAI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- 1 - 1 33 STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. v. AMBALAL HAIDERBHAI ETC. April 14, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J Land Acquisition (Cotnpanies) Rules 1963-Enquiry under R. 4 whether compliance with principles of 11atural jusrice required. The· appellant initiated proreedings ul'Jder the Land ,\cquisition . .<\ct, 1894. for acquiring the lands of the respondents for the Sardarnagar Co-operative Industrial Socie~y Ltd., in order to establish an industrial estate for small scale industries. A notification ·was issued under s. 4 of the . .<\ct after following the provisiohs of- Part VIl of the Act, and in <lue course the final notification under s. 6 of the Act was issued. The respondents challenged both the nofifications before the High Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground that at the enquiry held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, under R~ 4 of t-he Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules 1963, they had not been heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The }ligh c·ourt allowed the writ petitions. The question for decision before this Court \Vas whether the enquiry under Rule 4 requires compliance with the rules of natural justice. Dismissing the. appeals, •he Court, HELD: Jn conducting the enquiry, the Collector ha<;, in the interest of fair play, to observe the principles of natural justice by afford\ng the persons interest- ed in the 1and a reasonable opportunity of being heard an\l of adducing materifll before the Collector to refute the allegations of the company. [37 C-D] State of Guj<lrot ond Anr. v. Patel Chaturbhai Narsibhui & Ors. I !C.:"751 3 SCR 284, followed. Suresh Koshy George v .. The University of Kerala .and Ors. [1969_11 SCR 317 and A. K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. [1970]1 SCR 457 refer· red lo. C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 967 to 969 of 1971. A B c D E Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated April 17/18, 1970 o~ the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Appli- c~ions Nos. 116,, 1621 and 1622 of 1967. . (; D. V. Patel, M. C. Bhandare, M. N. Shroff for the Appellants in all the appeals. , . ; . : 'ti . . . ;., I. N. Shroff for Respondents Rr. 1 and 2 in 967 and R l in CAs. 968-969. P. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jelley for Respondent 3 in 967, R. 2 in 968, 969. 5-833SCI/7 6 H c D E F G H 34 ' SUPREI\1E COURT REPORTS (1976] SUPPLEMENTARY ... . .- . - . .· . ' ' -- The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JASWANT SINGH, J.-,Th~se ,three ·appeals Nos. 967 to 969 of 1971 by special leave which are directed against the co=on judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated April 17/18, ·1970 in Special Civil Application Nos. 116 of 1967, 1621 of 1967 and 1622 of 1967 arise thus : · - · · Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter . referred to -as 'the Act') for acquisition of certain lands in villages Sayajipuri, Bapow and Savad, District Baroda, Taluka Baroda were initiated by the Gove=ent of Gujarat at the instance of Sardarnagar Co-operative Industrial Society Limited registered under the Gujarat Co-operative _Societies Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Com- pany') for the purpose of establishing an industrial estate for small scale industries. The acquisition being for the Company a notifica- tion was issued tinder. section 4 of the Act on July 2, 1964 after following the provisions of Part VII of the Act. An agreement under section 41 of the Act between the State Government and the Company was entered into on April 2, 1965 and was published on· October 15, 1966. The final notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on October 18, 1966. The owners of the afornsaid lands who are contesting respondents herein challenged the aforesaid noti- fications issued under section 4 and 6 of the Act by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia on the ground that the provisions of the. Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Com- panies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') made by the Central Gove=ent in exercise of the powers conferred under section .55 of the Act, which by virtue of RU!e 1 (2) of the Rules apply to acquisition of land for all companies under Part VII of the Act, have not been complied with particularly as they had not been given a right to be heard in accordance with the princiJ?les of natural justice at the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.