AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.A. Mehta, J.—This petition by one individual petitioner is also for and on behalf of 16 other persons mentioned in Annexure ""A"" to the
petition and the Court-fees have been paid accordingly.
The petitioner challenges the land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Thebi Irrigation Scheme. The lands are of village Baxipur. A similar
challenge by another land holder under the same Notification came to be dismissed by this Bench on 10-3-1993 in Special Civil Application No.
9571 of 1992. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that judgment does not deal with all the questions raised in the present
petition.
As far as the first contention that no declaration u/s 6 could have been issued after issuance of the Section 9 notice, is concerned, that question
has been squarely decided in the aforesaid judgment. However, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in that judgment, an aspect is
not considered that Section 6 declaration is one declaration and there cannot be the same declaration again and again, once before Section 9
notice and another after Section 9 notice. The argument is fallacious because u/s 9, even if the declaration is one, it is required to be published in
different manners and more than one time. Therefore, once a declaration is made, it is a declaration and when it is published again, it does not
cease to be a declaration nor is it incomplete merely because one declaration is made and other declarations are not yet made. As far as the
declaration is concerned, it is complete as soon as it is signed and made u/s 6(1) of the Act. Therefore, this argument has no merit.
It was next submitted that u/s 6, the public notice should precede the notification u/s 6 in the Gazette. The declaration is required to be published
in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers and public notice of the substance of such declaration. Therefore, for all these purposes, the
existence of the declaration is necessary. What is to be published is the substance of the declaration and not of the Gazette notification.
In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector (District
Magistrate) Allahabad and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, . In that case, the Supreme Court on the language of Section 4 held that the Collector
shall require to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient place in the locality and the Supreme Court has
further observed that the expression ""such notification"" in the latter part of Section 4(1) and sequence of events herein enumerated would clearly
spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire the land, then publish a notification u/s 4(1) and simultaneously or within
reasonable time from the date of the publication of the notification cause a notice to be published containing substance of such notification and
therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that obviously therefore, there could not be a publication prior to the issuance of the notification.
The language of Section 6 is significantly different from the language of Section 4. Section 4 provides for publication of the substance of
notification, whereas Sec, 6 requires publication of the substance of the declaration. The declaration is made u/s 6(1) when it is signed and made. It
is not that such declaration when it is made only in the Official Gazette, then it becomes a declaration and therefore, the sequence of publication of
that declaration is not required to be necessarily as mentioned in Section 4. Therefore, this judgment of the Supreme Court does not in any manner,
assist the petitioner.
It was further contended that the Gazette Notification u/s 6 authorises the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation)
Rajkot under Clause (c) of Section 3 of the Act to perform the functions of the Collector. It was submitted that the newspaper publication of
Section 6 notification mentioned such officer to be the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation), Bhavnagar. It is,
therefore, submitted that there is a clear contradiction and the ultimate award has been passed by the Rajkot officer. It is true that there is a
contradiction between the Gazette notification u/s 6 and the one published in the newspaper. However, that would not, in any manner, vitiate
Section 6 notification because the requirements of Section 6 are all fully complied with, The officer who is appointed by the Gazette English
notification is the officer appointed u/s 3(c) and it does not require any such formalities of publications. It is not that Rajkot officer is not an
authorised officer. He has been duly authorised by the order of the competent authority by the Gazette notification and he has passed the award
and therefore, there is no infirmity in this proceeding on this point.
It was further contended that the purpose mentioned in Sections 6 and 4 notifications and in the award is confusing. In the notification, the public
purpose mentioned is Thebi Irrigation Scheme, whereas in the award the purposes mentioned are for submergence area for canal and for approach
for Thebi Irrigation Scheme. The public purpose of Thebi Irrigation Scheme includes all these purposes and therefore, there is no change of
purpose. It is merely more detailed description of the same purpose and there is no confusion or change of purpose. This argument also fails.
Lastly, it was contended that the notification refers to the source of power as Section 52A of the Land Acquisition Act, as applicable in Gujarat.
Section 52A. merely enables the Government to appoint an officer to exercise the powers of the Government and when such officer exercises
powers, he refers to the source of his power, while exercising the powers of the Government and issuing notification. Therefore, there is no merit in
this contention also.These were the only contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. All fail and hence, the petition is dismissed.