VALJIBHAI MULJIBHAI SONEJI AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY {NOW GUJARAT) AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 08-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

196$ 
686 
SUl,REl\IIE COURT RiPt:>RTS [1964] vot. 
V ALJIBHAI MU~JIBHAI SONEJI 
AND ANO.THER 
v. 
THE S l'ATE OF BOMBA:Y {NOW GUJARAT) 
AND OTHERS 
(S. K. DAs, K. SuBBA RAo, RAGHuBAit DAYAL, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAE and 
J.R. MuDHOLKAR. JJ.) 
!Anti Acqui1itiun-State Trru11part 
Gorp-0ration-If a 
Co111pa,.y-Aequi•ition for 11,,,, b•nejit of Oorpor<Uicm-Publk 
purpose-D,claration by 
Go•ernmenJ,-lf <XJnclu..oi~-Gorpo­
ralion, if a local authority-Valulity of acqui•itim prouedirog•-
Road Tranjport Gorporatfon Act, 1950 (64 of 1950), a. 47-
Bombay Btate Roa.d Transport Act, 1950 ~Bombay 25 of 1950), 
•. 29-Gweral clllu."• Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), •. 3 (1Jl)-La11d 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1of1894), 8'. 3 (•), 4,6. 
Proceedings were taken under the provisions of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Government of Bombay for 
acquiring a piece of land for the purpose of constructing a bw; 
depot required by the State Transport Corporation and for 
constructing office and other buildin~s for the said Corporation. 
A notification was issued under s. 4 of the Act in which it was 
stated that the acquisition was for a public purpose, namely, 
for "State Transport" and this fact was reiterated in the 
notification under s. 6 which, in addition, stated that the land 
was needed to be acquired for the purposes of and at the expense 
of the State Transport Corporation. The appellants challenged 
the validity of the acquisition proceedings on the grounds, 
inter aJia (I) that the purpose mentioned in the notification 
under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was indefinite or 
vague and therefore, the notification wa< bad, and (2) that the 
State Transport Corporation wa! not a "local authority" 
within the meaning of the expre!S:sion as used in the Act. but 
merely a company, and a• the provisions of Part VII of the 
Act were not complied with, the acquisition was invalid. The 
provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1948 and 
other provisions of the later 
Act' showed that the State 
Transport Corporation had been incorporatrd hy an ludian 
law within the meaning of" 3 (e) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
~ S.C.k. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
687 
1894, and that It wa• a company as defined 
under that 
section. 
Held (1) that the 
notifications of the 
Government 
issued under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
were conclusive on the question that the land was required 
for a public purpose even though it wa• being acquired for a 
corporation and not for the State; 
Snmawanti v. The State of Punj•b, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 774 
followed. 
(2) 
that the funds of the State Transport Corporation 
could not be regarded as public revenue, and that the Corpor· 
ation itself was not a dep:irtrneut of Govern1nent !Jut a separate 
legal entity; 
(3) 
that tho State Tran•pnrt Corpon•tiou 
was not a 
"local authority" as defined by s. 3 (31) 
of the General 
Clauses Act, 1897; and 
(4) 
that the accpiisition impugned in the present caBC 
having bcctt marle for the benefit of a Corp<>ration, though 
for • public purpoi:;e, \Vas bat I because no part of the com pen· 
sation was to co1nc out of public revenues and the provisions 
of part VII of the Laud Acquhilion Act, 1894, h.ad not been 
complied with. 
CIVIL A:r:rELJ;A.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 122 & 123 of 1963. 
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated 
March 18 and 23, i 960, of the former Bombay High 
Court in Applications for leave to appeal under 
Letters Patent from judgment and decree dated 
March l, 1960, of the said High Court in Second 
Appeal No. 1331 of 1959. 
J. O. Bhatt 
and V. J. Merckanl, for the 
appellants. 
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, 
S.S. Bin.Wra and R.H. Dhebar, for respondents 
Nos. 1 and 3. 
1963 
Voi}iihai Muljiihai 
S<m#ji 
v. 
Stale oj Bombay 
/9iS 
f"4ljiiUi Muljibhai 
. 
S•n1ji 
v. 
.St•te ef •tmt~ 
Alui.Mlk•r /,· 
688 
SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. 
1963. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
M11n1IOLXAR J.-· This judgment will also 
g.ivern C.A. No. 123 of 19G3 
These two appeals 
have come up before this Court by virtue of special 
leave granted by it on April 27, 1960. 
The appellants before us were plaintiffs in suits 
instituted by them before the second Joint Civil 
Judce (S.D). Ahmedabad, in which they challenged 
the validity of certain proceedings instituted by the 
then Government of Bombay for acquiring a piece of 
land belonging to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of 
c0n,tructing a bus

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