VIJAY COTTON & OIL MILLS LTD. versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 11-09-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

VUAY COTTON & OIL MILLS LTD. 
v. 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
September 11, 1968 
rs. M. S!KRI, R. s. BACfu\WAT AND K. s. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, ss. 4(1) and 6(1)-Declarations under-
Circumstances in which a decwration only under s. 6(1) may be treated 
as a composite declaration under SS. 4(1) and 6(1). 
A 
B • 
In 1949 the Government took possession of certain land belonging to 
the appellant under an arrangement whereby the Government was to 
C 
give to the appellant in exchange other suitable lands of equal value. 
After the Government had constructed some buildings on the land, it 
<lecided to acquire the land compulsorily. On February l, 1959, the 
Government issued a notification under s. 6(1) of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894, declaring that the land was needed. for public purposes and 
stating that possession of the land had already been taken. The Collec-
tor made an award on April 22, 1957 but the appellant objected to the 
amount of compensation and the Collector, on his application, made a 
D 
reference to the Court under s. 18. At the hearing of the reference before 
the District Judge, the Government conc~ded that the appellant was en-
titled to the market value of the land as on February 1, 1955 and the 
District Judge awarded compensation accordingly. Thereafter the Gov· 
ernment filed an appeal in the High Court and contended that in the 
absence of a notification under s. 
4(1); no compensation could be 
awarded to the appellant. 
The Hizh Court allowed the appeal and set 
.aside the order of the District Judge. 
E 
On appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Allowing the appeal : 
The Government having constructed buildings on the land was not in 
.a position to restore it and had no option bnt to acquire it compulsorily. 
With a view to make the acquisition the Government published a notili· 
cation under sec. 6(1) on February 1, 1955. On linding that therei was 
no separate notification under sec. 4(1) the Government had a choice 
between two courses. It could say that in the absence of such a notifi· 
cation the acquisition was invalid and that no compensation could be 
awarded under sec. 23. If it did so it would be compelled to start fresh 
acquisition proceedings and pay a 1arger sum by way of compensation. , 
The other course was to treat the notification of February 1, 1955 as a 
composite one under sections 4(1) and 6(1) with the consent of the 
appellant and to say that the market value of the land on that day could 
be awarded by way of compensation. 'The Government elected to choose 
the fatter course and the appellant agreed to accept compensation on that 
footing. 
Having regard to the consent of both parties, it could properly 
be assumed that the procedure of s. 5A bad been waived by the appellant 
and that the notification of February 1, 1955 could be treated as a compo-
•ite one under ss. 4(1) and 6(1). The District Judge could therefore law-
fully award the market value of the land on that day. [63 C·G] 
Somavanti v. State of Puniab. 
[1963] 2 S.C.R. 
775, 821-823 
and 
Toronto Corpr. v. Russell, [1908] A.C. 493; referred to. 
F 
G 
H 
• 
... 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.., 
F 
G 
H 
VIJAY MILLS v. GUJARAT (Bachawat, !.) 
61 
Furthermore, relying on the concession made by the Government 
the appellant had acted to its detriment in that it did not challenge the 
acquisition and the Government had come to be in adverse possession 
of the land for more than 12 years. In these circumstances the Govern-
ment could not be permitted to resile from the election which it dellbera-
tely made and to say that the appe.Jlant was not entitled to the market 
value of the land on February 1, 1955. [63 G-H] 
Rama Charan C!zakrabarty v. Nimai Monda/, 15 C.L.J. 58; referred to. 
CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1948 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 22, 1965 
of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 718 of 1960. 
Purshottam Trikamdas, M. H. Chhatrapati and A. K. Varma, 
for the appellant. 
G. L. Sanghi, Urmila Kapur and S. P. Nayar, for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
The appellant was the owner of land bearing 
survey No. 910 situated on the Bhachau-Rahapur Road in Kutch 
District. In November 1949 the Government of Kutch took 
possession of the land under an arrangement that the Govern-
ment would give to the appellant in exchange other suitable lands 
of equal value. On that date Kutch was part of the territory o

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