9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and son flied a suit against the said Jotish alleging that as Sovaram had died during the pendency of the said suit the decree passed against him was a nullity and so also the auction sale. On June 27, 1945 the said suit was decreed against the said Jotish and appeals by him against the said decree both in the District Court and the High Court were dismissed. While the said suit was pending, Swaika, the first appellant herein, purchased from the said Jotish his interest in the said land for ₹ 6'000/ and also agreed to carry on the said litigation against Sovaram's widow and son. Swaika thereafter tried to obtain possession of the land but was foiled in doing so by an injunction obtained by Sovaram's widow' and son, the plaintiffs in the said suit. Swaika then got the Education Department to move for the acquisition of the said land for a Girls' High School of which, it appears, he was the prime spirit. On July 1, 1946 the State Government 'issued the notification under see. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the suit land. An 'inquiry under s. 5A was held and thereafter on April 18, 1951 the Government issued the notification under sec. 6 and passed the necessary or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is satisfied that the land is needed for a public purpose." The argument was that the said words used in the notification did not ex facie indicate the satisfaction of the government which is a condition precedent to such a declaration and that therefore sec. 6 notification was no.t in proper form and the acquisition proceedings taken thereafter were bad in law. It appears that though the amendment was disallowed, the said cOntention was allowed to be urged, for, the District Judge has answered it in the following terms :-- declaration under sec. 6 the point that requires for consideration is whether the executive authority did actually form an opinion about the requirement of the land for public purpose. So far as the present declaration (Ex. 10A) is concerned it will go to show that the land was required for public purpose and it is conclusive in view of the provisions of section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act" On this reasoning he dismissed the appeal. The District Judge also agreed with the findings of the Trial Court that the 1st respondent Society failed to prove mala fides on the part of the Government or the misuse of its power under the Act. The 1st responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have reopened their concurrent finding except on the ground that it was perverse or unreasonable or without evidence. Such an argument not having been urged, the High Court could not go into that question. But it was urged that the High Court has merely expressed a prima facie view and has not conclusively accepted the finding of the Trial Court and the District Court. That argument has no merit. What the High Court really meant by the expression "prima facie" was that the finding being concurrent was binding on it and that no contention as to that finding being perverse etc., having been urged before it there was not even a prima facie case to justify the reopening of that finding. Therefore, the allegation as to mala fides or abuse of power by the Government was conclusively negatived and Counsel for the 1st respondent Society was therefore not entitled to canvass that question before us in this appeal. The only question therefore that we are called upon to decide is whether the High Court was correct in holding that (i) the Government's satisfaction must be stated in the notification itself and (ii) that because the notification has used the words "it appears ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Act 38 of 1923 now added in s. 41 the report of the Collector under s. 5A, if any. These amendments show that even prior to the 1923 Amendment Act, whenever the Government was required by the Act to consider a report, the legislature had used the word satisfaction on the part of the Government. Since the Amendment Act 1923 introduced s. 5A requiring the Collector to hold an inquiry and to make a report and required the Government to consider that report and the objections dealt with in it, the legislature presumably thought it appropriate to use the same expression which it had used in sees. 40 and 41 where also an inquiry was provided for and the Government had to consider the report of the officer making such inquiry before giving its consent. But Counsel for the 1st respondent Society argued that since the legislature has used different language from the one it had used earlier, it must mean that it did so deliberately and because it considered the new words as more appropriate. On the other hand, Counsel for the appellant argued that the meaning of both the expressions is synonymous. It is not necessary for us in this appeal to construe the two expressions as on a construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation does not ex facie show the Government's satisfaction, assuming that the words "it appears" used in the notification do not mean satisfaction, would. not render the notification invalid or not in conformity with sec. 6. Apart from the clear language of sec. 6 it would seem that it is immaterial whether such satisfaction is stated or not in the notification. For, even if it is so. stated. a person interested in the land can always challenge as a matter of fact that the Government was not actually satisfied. In such a case the Government would have to satisfy the Court by leading evidence that it was satisfied as required by sec. 6. In the present case no. such evidence was led because the fact that the Government was satisfied was never challenged in the pleadings and no issue on that question was sought to be raised. Even when the 1st respondent Society sought to amend its plaint it did so only to say that the notification did not state such satisfaction and therefore did not establish such satisfaction. The High Court no doubt thought that this question was covered by Issue No.. 3 framed by the Trial Court. But the contention said to be covered by that issue was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
