PARSHOTfAM JADAVJI JANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors.

The appellant is the owner of Survey Nos. 219 /I and 121 situated on the outskirts of Mahuva in Bhavnagar District. By notification dated April 25, 1969, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State Government declared that the above-mentioned lands were needed for the public purpose of construction of an Industrial Estate by the Gujarat Industrial be needed for Development Corporation or were likely that purpose. On May 3, 1969 a notice was issued to the appel lant by S. 0. Collector, Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, informing the appellant that if he had any objection to the acqui sition of the lands, he might file objections on or before August 16, 1969. He was further informed that the Officer will hear him or his Counsel at the time of filing the objections. The appellant filed his objections. He took various points, but we are only con cerned with one. He pointed out that the Gujarat Industrial Deve lopment Corporation has come out with ambitious projects for the establishment of the Industrial estate though, in fact, the land already acquired by the Corporation is in excess of the require that the corporation is not in ment of the Corporation. possession of such material as would establish genuineness for the establishment of an I, therefore, claim that the responsible officer should be cross-examined by me for the purpose of showing that the proposed acquisition is not for public purpose and that there is no need to acquire the present lands. The other suitable lands are available and the Corporation has not availed of the same and that the acquisition needs to be dropped. I say that the contiguous lands to the lands under the first notification are available and it would be more suitable than the present land. I, therefore, submit that the proposed acquisi tion is ma/a fide inasmuch as my lands are preferred to the other land owners available immediately near the lands required under the first notification. industrial estate of Mahuva. I say He accordingly prayed : "(a) That the officers of the said Corporation which have sought the acquisition and I or such Officer I name hereafter be summoned for the purpose of cross-examina- tion. (bl That personal hearing be granted." B c D E F G H 296 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] SUPP. s.c.R. It appears that hearing was fixed for September 18, 1969; this date was extended from time to time till November 18, 1969. The appellant did not appear on these dates nor did he apply for any extension of time. His written objection dated August 12/18, 1969 and dated September 18, 1969 were considered and includ ed in the report, under Section SA to the Government. B c D E F G H Three points were pressed by the appellant before L'1e High Court. The principal point that the Gujarat Industrial Develop ment Corporation Act, 1962 was beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature no longer survives as this Court has held this Act to be valid in the case of Ramtanu C. H. Society v. State of Maharashtra ('). The second ground pressed before the High Court was that the establishment of Industrial Area by the Cor poration was not a public purpose but a private purpose. In our view the High Court was right in holding that this was a public raised before the High Court was purpose. The third ground strongly pressed before us. According to the learned Counsel the report under Section S.A of the Land Acquisition Act was vitiat ed because the Collector had not granted an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the officers of the Corporation for the purpose of showing that the purpose for which the Corporation sought to acquire the lands was not a public purpose and there was no need to acquire the apellant's land. The High Court rely ing on its earlier decision in Ganddla/ v. State(') held that "the inquiry under Section 5A(2) is an administrative inquiry and objector is not entitled to cross-examine any officers or members of the acquiring body." Under Section 55 of the Land Acquisition Act certain rules have been made for the guidance of officers in dealing with objec tions lodged under Section 5-A of the Act. These rules are as follows : "I. Whenever any notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published but the provisions of Section 11 have not been applied and the Collector has under the provision of Section 4(1) issued notice to the parties inter ested ; and on or before the last day fixed by the Collec tor in those notices in this behalf any objection is lodged under section 5-A(2), firstly. the Collector shall record the objection in his proceedings, secondly, the Collector shall consider whether the objection is admissible according to these rules. (1) A. I. R. 1970 S. C.1771. (2) (1963) 4 Gujarat Law Reporter 326 PARSHOTIAM V. GUJARAT (Sikri, C.J.)

#2. To be admissible (a) an objection must be present ed in writing by a party interested in the notified land and must be presented within thirty days after the date of pub- lication of the notification under Section 4 or within mch period as may be fixed by the Collector; (b) it must allege some specific objections, such as these ; 297 A (i) the notified purpose is not genuinely or properly B a public purpose ; ) (ii) the land notified is not suitable for the purpose for which it is notified ; (iii) the land is not so well suited as other land; (iv) the area proposed is excessive ; (v) the objector's land has been selected maliciously or vexatiously; ~vi) the acquisition will destroy or impair the amenity of historical or artistic monuments and places of public resort; will take away important public rights of way or other conveniences or will descecrate religious buildinl!IS. graveyard and the like.

#3. After admitting an objection and after having given the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader, the Collector shall decide whether it is desirable to hear oral or documentary evidence, which under Section 14 or Section 40 of the Act, he has power to call for. If evidence tendered by the objector is admitted, the Collector shall also afford the other party an opportunity of rebutting it by other evidence or of cross examining the witnesses : If he admits evidence, he will fix a time and place of bearing it ; and will hear and record it in his proceedings.

#4. Agents, other than pleaders, will not be allowed to in any enquiry interested appear mr behalf of persons under Section 5-A of the Act. S. After completing the record of evidence, the Col-. lector shall submit his report and recommendations as to each objection, whether inadmissible or admissible for the orders of Government under Section 5A(2) of the Act." It seems to us that the rules have been complied with. The appellant was given an opportunity to be heard personally. He chose not to avail ·himself of that opportunity. The appellant c D E P G H 298 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] SUPP. s.c.R cannot under these rules claim to cross-examine officers of the Cor poration, and in our opinion the prayer to cross-examine offir..ers Indeed it was a strange request. The was rightly rejected. officers had not given any evidence before the· Collector and we are unable to see what principle entitles the appellant to claim this right. When rules have been framed regulating the enquiry under Section SA of the Land Acquisition Act, it is not neces sary to consider whether the enquiry is administrative or quasi judicial and whether rules of natural justice have been complied with, and accordingly we say nothing on this point. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. C V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.