Desai, J. - (1.) These two appeals by certificate under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution arise from a judgment rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 729/68, being a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of a notification issued by the Government of Gujarat on 10th Oct., 1967 under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short). Civil Appeal No. 2316/69 is preferred by the original respondent No.2 Gujarat State Transport Corporation, and the cognate Civil Appeal No. 1598/70 is preferred by the State of Gujarat, the first respondent in the petition. As both the appeals arise from the same proceedings and raise identical contentions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) A notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued by the former Government of Bombay on 10th October 1952 notifying that final plots 41, 42 and 43 were likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., State Transport. The respondents who are tenants of different parcels of land comprised in the aforementioned final plots objected to the proposed acquisition. Soon after filing the objections under S.5A of the Act the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 1262/53 in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Division, Ahmedabad, for a declaration that the notification under S.4 was illegal and ultra vires and for an injunction restraining the respondent State from proceeding with the acquisition of the lands in possession of the respondents. During the pendency of this suit the then Government of Bombay, after considering the report submitted under S.5A, made a declaration under S. 6 as per the notification dated 14th August 1953 declaring, inter alia, that final plots 41, 42 and 43 were required for the purpose of State Transport. The respondents amended their plaint adding a relief for quashing the notification under S. 6. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the trial Court and their first and second appeals did not meet with success. They carried the matter to this Court and succeeded as per judgment reported in Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. The State of Bombay (now Gujarat), (1964) 3 SCR 686. As per that judgment this Court decreed the plaintiff's suit which would imply that this Court quashed both notification under Ss.4 and 6. Reading the judgment as a whole it appears that the validity of S.4 notification was upheld and only the notification under S. 6 was struck down. In the meantime on the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bombay these land acquisition proceedings came within the cognizance of the Government of Gujarat and when the State Government became aware somewhere in 1965 about the error in the decree, Review Applications Nos. 11 and 12 of 1965 were made for correcting the decree. This Court granted the applications and modified the decree on 13th September 1965.
(3.) The Government taking its clue from the judgment of this Court which invalidated S.6 notification on the ground that the acquisition having been made for the benefit of a Corporation, though for public purpose, is bad because no part of the compensation is to come out of the public revenue and provisions of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act have not been complied with, decided as per its letter dated Aug. 22, 1966 to contribute Re. 1, which was subsequently raised to Rs.500, towards payment of compensation. The Government, however, felt that as a long time has elapsed since the earlier report under S. 5-A was submitted by the Collector, a fresh enquiry should be made. Accordingly the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notice dated 1st August 1966 intimating to the respondents that if they so desired they may submit their further objections by or before 16th August 1966. Complying with this notice the respondents submitted further objections on 31st August 1966 and they were also given a personal hearing. After examining the report submitted by the enquiry officer the Government of Gujarat issued a notification under S. 6 on 10th October 1967. The respondents questioned the validity and legality of this notification in the petition filed by them on 14th February 1968.;