N.M.MIABHOY - (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 secs. 4 and 6 and proceedings under sec. 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (I of 1894) (hereafter 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 certiorari or any other writ direction or order for quashing the enquiry under sec. 5A of the Act and for setting aside the notification under sec. 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 sq. yards. The respondent No. 1 was at the relevant time the Commissioner Baroda Division Baroda. He issued a notification under sec. 4 of the Act on 1st September 1960 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 sec. 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 sec. 5A of the Act. The petitioner was served with a notice under sec. 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 sec. 5A of the Act before the respondent No. 2. These objections were probably rejected by the respondent No. 2. Ultimately on 19th January 1961 the respondent No. 1 published a notification dated 10 January 1961 under sec. 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 secs. 4 and 6 of the Act issued by the respondent No 1 and the proceedings taken by the respondent No. 2 under sec. 5A 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 4A in the petition. Mr. Nanavati the learned counsel for the petitioner. however at the time of the hearing of this petition did not press all the grounds taken in the petition. He pressed the ground incorporated in the amended paragraph 4A as the main ground in support of this petition. At the commencement of his arguments Mr. Nanavati formulated 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 in the present petition. The points which were formulated by Mr. Nanavati 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 secs. 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 and expressed in the name of the President and was not 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 sec. 5A of the Act was a quasi-judicial enquiry and that the 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 sec. 5A of the Act was not held as required by the rules framed by the State Government under sec. 55 of the Act. (vi) That the notification under sec. 6 of the Act was mala fide inasmuch as it was made inspite of the fact that the enquiry under sec. 5A of the Act disclosed that there were no materials on the record which would sustain a notification under that section. ;