AMBALAL PURSHOTTAM V. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS INSC 42; AIR 1968 SC 1223; 1968 SCR 207

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J On June 6, 1941, the Municipal Borough of Ahmedabad prescribed a "line of the street" along an important thoroughfare in the town of Ahmedabad and resolved that steps be taken for compulsory acquisition of lands falling, "within the line." On June 9, 1941 a notification was issued by the Government of Bombay under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that the lands set out in the Schedule "were likely to be needed for the public purpose set out in column 6 of the Schedule thereto, viz., for road widening", and that "any contracts for the disposal of any of the said lands by sale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange or otherwise, or any outlay or improvements made therein without the sanction of the Collector....... after the date of this notification will, under section 24 (seventhly) of the said Act, be disregarded by the officer assessing compensation for such parts of the said lands as may be finally acquired." The government of Bombay issued a notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act sometime in 1943, and also appointed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to take order for acquisition of the lands. After the publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, structures on the lands notified were burnt down by rioters. The owners of the lands put up temporary structures upon the lands with the permission of the Municipal Borough giving an undertaking that they will not claim compensation for 209 these structures in the land acquisition proceedings. The structures were let out to different tenants. Proceedings for assessment of compensation were not imme- diately taken in hand, but negotiations were started by the Municipal Borough with the owners of the lands, and between the years 1944 and 1952 some lands were purchased by the Municipal Borough by private treaty and the lands so purchased were withdrawn from the notification for acquisition. Finding that it was not possible to persuade the other owners to sell their lands, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was moved to make his award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made a common award on August 13, 1960. When the Special Land Acquisition Officer attempted to take possession of the lands acquired, the tenants of the structures moved petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Gujarat for writs quashing or setting aside the notifications under ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the awards and the notices issued for obtaining possession from the petitioners.

The High Court rejected the petitions. Against the orders rejecting the petitions, these appeals have been filed with special leave. The contention that the proceeding for making of his award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was invalid has also no substance. The appellants as lessees of the structures had no fight in the land on which the structures stood. The structures belonged to the owners of the land, and were allowed to be Put up after the date of the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, on the undertaking that no compensation shall be claimed in respect of the structures. The appellants were not on the lands at the date of the notification under s. 4, and being tenants of the structures they acquired, prima facie, no interest in the lands. Even assuming that they had acquired, by virtue of their respective tenancies, any interest in the lands, their remedy was to approach the Land Acquisition authorities for claiming apportionment of compensation. It may be pointed out 213 hat this contention was not raised, before the High Court and has been raised for the first time in this Court. The last argument raised by counsel for the appellants is, in our judgment futile. The notification issued by the Government of Bombay under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was by operation of sub-s. (3) conclusive evidence that the land was needed for a public purpose. No inquiry was thereafter permissible that the land was not needed for a public purpose. It is true that no steps were immediately taken by the Land Acquisition Officer authorities to make awards of compensation and to take possession of the lands. But the reason apparently was that the municipality was. still trying to purchase the land by private treaty and when it was found that it could not purchase the lands, the Land Acquisition Officer was requested to expedite the determination of compensation. We are unable to hold that there is any evidence that the Government of Bombay issued the notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, not for the bona fide purpose of acquisition, but with the object of pegging down prices so that the lands may when needed be obtained at those rates in future. The land was within the line of the street and could not without the sanction of the municipality be put to any profitable use. If either the land owners or the tenants were aggrieved by the delay, it was open to them to claim writs or orders compelling the State Government to complete the assessment and payment of compensation. We are not hereby to be understood as suggesting that after issue of' the notifications under ss. 4 & 6 the appropriate Government would be justified in allowing the matters to drift and to take in hand the proceeding for assessment of compensation whenever they think it proper to do. It is intended by the scheme of the Act that the notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act must be followed by a proceeding for determination of compensation without any unreasonable delay. But on the facts of the present case, it does not appear that there was any scope for holding that with a view to prevent the land owners or the persons claiming derivative title from them from getting the benefit of the rise in prices, notifications under ss. 4 and 6. were issued without any intention to take steps for acquisition of the lands.