STATE OF GUJARAT versus BHOGILAL KESHAVLAL & ANR.

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 27-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

LA 
B 
- c 
·o 
E 
. F 
. G 
B 
284 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
, I 
f 
, 
, .I ~ L 
v. 
• f 
BHOGILAL KESHAVLAL & ANR. 
November 21, 1979 
[P. N. SmNGHAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Ltmd Acquisition Act, 1894, SectiOM 4 & 6- Scope of. · 
The first respondent owned certain Land forming part of a town planning 
scheme, situated within the city limits. At the request of the second reapondentF 
a Cooperative Housing Society, the State Government issued a 
Notification~ 
under section 4 of the Act ori August 3, 1960 stating that the' land was likely 
· 
to be needed for a public purpose and it was foUowed by a farther notificatioll' 
of the State Goveroment under Section 6 of the Act dated August 21, 1961 
that the land was to be acquired at the expense of the Cooperative Housing. 
Society for the public purpose specified in column 4 of the Schedule to the 
notification. The entire expense of the acquisition was to be borne by the 
second respondent. 
The first respondent moved the High Court undor Article 226 of the Consti-
tution cf¥U~enging the valadity of the notification under section 6 of the Act. 
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the appellant by a notification dated 
May 27, 1963 cancelled the earlier notification under section 6 and issued a 
fresh notification. The High Court struck down the second notification dated 
September 10, 1964 issued under section 6 of the Act. In the appeal to this 
Court, on the question of the validity of the 2nd notification dated September 
10, 1964. 
HElD : (i) The High Court was in error in striking down the second 
notification under section 6 of the Act issued on September 10, 1964. 
(ii) This Court in Valjibhai Mulfibhal Soneji v. State of Bombay [1964] 3 
S.C.R. 686 has held that the Governme111.t ~ 
no power to issue a notification 
for acquisition of land for a public purpose, where the compensation is to be 
entirely paid by a company. [287 C-D] 
In the instant case the first notification issued by the Government for 
acquisition of land for a public pUrpOSe at the e:xpeme, of the second respon-
dent, the cooperative societY was therelore, invalid and the Govt. was justified 
in issuing the second notification under section 6 after removing the lacuna by 
providing for acquisition of the land for public purpo!le, at public expense • 
/ 
[287 D-E]' 
(iii) The acquisition of land for cooperative housing society is a public 
purpose. The Govt. is the best judge to determine whether the ptJl'll(li8e in 
question is a public purpose or not. It cannot be said that a Housing Scheme-
for a limited tmmber of persons cannot be construed to be a public Pllrtlote· 
When a notific&ti.on·under section 6 of the Act is in~id, the Govt. may treat it 
as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under stction 6 af tlle 
Act and 
nothing in section 48 of the Act precludes the Government from ioing 110. 
[291 C-E} 
C- .J 
GUJARAT v. BHOGILAI. KESHAVLAL (Sen, 1.) 
285 
Girdharilal Amratlal Shodan & Ors. v. 
State of Gujarat & Ors. 
[1966] 
A · 
3 S.C.R. 437, Sham Bdwri & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [1964] 
.6 S.C.R. 636, Pandit Jhandu Lal & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [1961] 
2 S.C.R. 459 Ratilal Shankarbhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat &: Ors. AI.R. 
1970 S.C. 984, Ram Swarup v. The District lAnd Acquisition Officer, Aligarh 
& Ors. A.I.R. 1972 SC 2390, referred to. 
(iv) In the instant case, tho Respondent had not taken any ground in the 
Writ Petition with regard to the delay in the issuance of the second notifica-
ton. The High Court was therefore, not justified in observing that "the appel-
lant had not explained the delay by 1lling any affidavit." 
If there W!l6 
no 
, 
ground taken, there could be no occasion for filing of any such affidavit. 
-r----
. [292 B-C] 
(v) There is nothing in the Act which precludes the Govt. from issuing 
a fresh notification under s. 6 of the Act if tile earlier notification is found to 
be ineffective. The delay of one year and four months between the date of 
~ancellation and the issue of the second notification cannot be regarded to be 
unreasonable. [292 E-F] 
Gujarat State Transport Corpn. v. Valji Mulji Soneji [1979] 3 S.C.R. 202, 
referred to 
CiviL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No·. 1479 
1971. 
of 
> 
From th~ Judgment and Order dated 254-1969 of the Gujarntl 
High Court in SCA No.' 271/65. 
G. A. Shah, N. S. Pande and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant. 
P.R. Mridul, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailr;8N Mehta for Respondent 
No.1· 
J. N. S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.