TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (11) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution as it stood before the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972. 2. The case arose on a suit instituted by the plaintiff Sankalchand 'Khodidas Patel on February 8, 1961, to challenge the validity of the notifications issued by the defendant-State under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of land bearing survey number 146, in Dariapur- Kazipur area of Ahmedabad City. The notification under Section 4 was issued on May 23, 1958, in respect of 1 acre 36 gunthas of land. It was stated in the notification that the land was likely to be needed for a "public purpose, viz., for the construction of houses for New Sarvodaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., at Dariapu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 4. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that while it decided some of the points in controversy against the plaintiff, it allowed the appeal because it took the view that the acquisition was not for a public purpose within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act as "the intention declared by the Government to pay the amount of subsidy to the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the land under acquisition has been by necessary implication abandoned." The short question for consideration in this appeal is whether this finding has been arrived at according to the law. 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the points on which they were at issue in the trial mutt. We find that w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n. The High Court arrived at its finding on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence referred to by it in the judgment but, here again, we find that it committed obvious errors of law for which its finding of fact cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 7. The High Court has, in this connection, referred to the "first fact" that even though the award of compensation under Section 16 was ready for publication as early as 1961, it was not published because the amount of subsidy in respect of which the Government "had declared its intention as evidenced by Ex. 54 had not been placed at the disposal of the Land Acquisition Officer" or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Now in so far as the question of non-publication of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd would be met from the grants which had been sanctioned in the budget. Rameshchandra Jethalal's statement about the government resolution to that effect, has not been shaken in cross-examination. It was therefore quite sufficient to prove that the Government did not go back upon that decision and that the sanction did not lapse with the expiry of the year. It is another matter that, because of the protracted litigation, it may have become necessary for the authorities concerned to obtain a fresh order of allocation of the funds for the payment of the government's contribution of Rs. 45,980/- in pursuance of its decision contained in Ex. 54, but there is nothing on the record to show that the decision ceased to be operative after i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a local body or corporation or company as the case may be" were not scored off from the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the language of the notification supported its finding that the acquisition was for a company, and not for a public purpose. It is true that the unnecessary words were not scored off, but the very fact that it was stated at as many as four places in that very notification that the acquisition was for a public, purpose, was sufficient to show that the omission was inadvertent and could not justify the finding that the land was not acquired for a public purpose but for a company. 11. The High Court has made a reference to paragraph 9 of the written statement also in support of its finding against the defendant, ....