MIABHOY, J. -
(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner Shri Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order for setting aside two notifications under Section 4 and 6 and proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (I of 1894) (hereinafter called the ('Act') and for directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 not to take action under those notifications and proceedings. Alternatively, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorarl or any other writ, direction or order for quashing the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act and for setting aside the notification under Section 6 of the Act.
(2.) The petitioner is the owner of final plot No, 686 of the Ellisbridge Town Planning Scheme No.3, situated' in Moje Chhadavad, City. Taluka, Ahmedabad, admeasuring 7018' square yards. The respondent No. 1 was, at the relevant time, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, Baroda. He issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 1st September, 1560, notifying that about 3200 square yards out of the above plot were needed or were likely to be needed for a certain public purpose. This notification was published in the Gujarat Government. Gazette. By this notification, the respondent No. 1, acting under Section 3(c) of the Act, also appointed respondent No. 2 as the Additional Special Land" Acquisition Officer to perform the functions of a Collector under Section 5-A of the; Act. The petitioner was served with a notice under Section : 4(1) of the Act on or about 24th September, 1960. In response to this notice, the petitioner filed, on 6th October, 1960, his objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the respondent No. 2, These objections were probably rejected by the respondent No. 3. Ultimately, on 19th January, 1961 the respondent No. 1 published a notification dated 10th January, 1961, under Section 6 of the Act declaring that 3387 square yards of the above final plot were required for the public purpose of the; construction of a telephone exchange building in the Ellisbridge area of the city of Ahmedabad. He also appointed by the same notification the respondent No. 2 to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act. The present petition is directed against the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act issued by the respondent No. 1 and the proceedings' taken by the respondent No. 2 under Section 5-A of the same Act.
(3.) The above two notifications and proceedings were challenged in the petition on a number of grounds. On or about 30th of March, 1962, with the permission of this Court, the petitioner added a fresh ground which was incorporated as paragraph 4-A in the petition. Mr. Nanavaty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, at the time of the hearing of this petition, did not press all the grouads taken in the petition. He pressed the ground incorporated in the amended paragraph 4-A as the main ground in support of this petition. At the commencement of his arguments, Mr. Nanavaty fomulated also five other points for our decision. But, at the fag end thereof, he gave up points Nos. (v) and (vi), presently to be mentioned. The result is that only four points require determination is the present petition. The points which were formulated by Mr. Nanavaty were as follows:
(i) That the respondent No. 1, the Commissioner, Baroda Division, Baroda, had no authority, in law, to Issue the two notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. (ii) That even if any such authority was purported to be conferred upon, the respondent No. 1, by the President of India under Article 258 ; Clause (1) of the Constitution, the delegation was invalid, because it contravened the provisions of Article 77 of the Constitution inasmuch as the order of the President under Article 258 was not made arid ex pressed in the name of the President and was apt authenticated as specified in the rules made by the President under Clause (2) of Article 77 of the Constitution.
(iii) That the respondent No. 1 had no authority, in law, to confer powers of a Collector under the Act on respondent No. 2. (iv) That the enquiry conducted by the respondent No. 2 under Section 5-A of the Act was a quasi judicial enquiry and that enquiry was bad inasmuch as it was not conducted by the respondent No. 2 in the manner in which a quasi judicial enquiry requires to be conducted under the law. (v) That the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was not held as required, by the rules framed by the State Government under Section 55 of the Act. (vi) That the notification under Section 6 of the Act was mala fide inasmuch as it was made in spite of the fact that the 'enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act disclosed that there were no materials on the record which would sustain a notification under that section. As already stated, Mr. Nanavaty gave up the last two points during the course of 'the hearing though he did so after he had developed them up to a certain stage.;