M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of land bearing Final Plot No. 274 of Town Planning Scheme No. 4 at Navagam Taluka Choryashi District Surat. By filing this petition he has challenged the notification dated 21st October 1993 (Annexure-J to the petition) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Gujarat. By amending the petition he has also challenged the order dated 28th February 1994 (Annexure-K to the petition) passed by the Surat Municipal Corporation rejecting the petitioners application for granting him permission for development of the land under acquisition. ( 2 ) THE Land Acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquiring land for circular road and parking so that on the eastern side of the railway station at Surat booking office and other facilities can be provided to the passengers. Considering the importance of the project and the fact that it is delayed for one or other reason at the time of admission of the matter the parties were directed to file necessary affidavits and the matter was adjourned repeatedly so as to enable the parties to file necessary affidavits. Thereafter at the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard at length and is finally decided. FACTS ( 3 ) FOR deciding the contentions raised in this petition it would be necessary to refer to the facts which are brought on record. The chronology or the facts which is properly supplied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is as under:- (1) The land is required for circular road and parking for the purpose of having booking office and for providing other facilities at Surat Railway station on the Eastern side. In the letter dated 8th October 1991 (Annexure-I to the further affidavit filed by Respondent No. 4-Surat Municipal Corporation) addressed by the Divisional Railway Manager Western Railway Bombay Central to the Municipal Commissioner Surat Municipal Corporation it has been stated that the master plan for providing appropriate booking office alongwith waiting hall and other facilities and passenger amenities have been made by the railway; sufficient approach road from Plot No. 447. i. e. South side and circulating area for car parking scooter stand and autorickshaw parking have also been shown in the same. i. e. South side and circulating area for car parking scooter stand and autorickshaw parking have also been shown in the same. By the said letter the Municipal Corporation was requested to proceed for getting the land vacated and providing approach road as well as the circulating area so that the station building alongwith the booking office can be planned by the railway. It was also pointed out that this can only be utilised when the approach road and circulating area space is available on the Eastern side. (2) On the basis of the said request made by the Western Railway by its resolution dated 27th February 1992 (Annexure-II to the affidavit in reply by respondent No. 1) the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation authorised the Municipal Commissioner to take appropriate action for acquiring the land bearing Final Plots No. 269 269 270 273 and 274 for the purpose of road and parking because of proposed railway station building either by agreement under Section 77 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 (for shortthe BPMC Act) or under Section 78 if by agreement the land cannot be acquired. (3) Thereafter the State of Gujarat passed a resolution dated 31st July 1992 to the effect that the aforesaid plots be acquired for Surat Municipal Corporation and the proposal of the Corporation under Section 7r of the BPMC Act was approved and sanctioned by the State of Gujarat. The said resolution is signed by the Under Secretary Urban Development and Urban Housing Department under the order and in the name of the Governor of the State of Gujarat. (4) Thereafter on 29th October 1992 the State of Gujarat published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land by the Surat Municipal Corporation for road and parking for the purpose of public at large. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Branch No. 4. Surat was appointed for performing the functions of the District Collector for the purpose of acquiring the said land. (5) The petitioner filed objections under Section 5 of the Act pursuant to the notice received by him. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Branch No. 4. Surat was appointed for performing the functions of the District Collector for the purpose of acquiring the said land. (5) The petitioner filed objections under Section 5 of the Act pursuant to the notice received by him. The objections are produced alongwith the petition at Annexure-B. In the said objections it was inter alia contended that Surat Urban Development Authority has been constituted under the Town Planning and Urban Development Act by the Government of Gujarat and in the Development Plan prepared by it the land under acquisition was within the residential zone and so no reservation can be made for keeping the land for the alleged purpose of road and parking around the railway station. (6) The Special Land Acquisition Officer wrote letter dated 12th February 1993 to the Town Planner Surat Municipal Corporation that as soon as the draft town planning scheme is sanctioned by the State Government proceeding under the Town Planning Act becomes illegal and the land under the Town Planning Scheme can be acquired under the Scheme. However such land can be acquired for Government Government Departments or for Corporations like Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and such other institutions. He therefore requested that under the Town Planning Act the land may be reserved for road and parking and for that appropriate sanction may be obtained from the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department of the State Government. (7) In response to the said letter the Director of Planning Surat Municipal Corporation wrote to the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the circular of the State Government and the decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the present case as the land is not reserved for any such purpose in the development plan for the area under the Town Planning Scheme. (8) Similarly the Municipal Commissioner Surat Municipal Corporation also wrote letter to the Additional Chief Secretary Urban Development and Urban Housing Department that the land is not reserved under the Town Planning Scheme therefore there is no question of variation of the T. P. Scheme He requested that the Collector be directed to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings at the earliest He also mentioned that the circular dated 20th June 1970 is not applicable to the sanctioned and finalised T. P. Scheme. (9) Thereafter the petitioner filed further objections dated 23rd February 1993 before the Deputy Secretary to Government Revenue Department the copy of which has been produced with the additional affidavit-in-rejoinder (10) Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted report under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act to the Stale Government. (9) Thereafter the petitioner filed further objections dated 23rd February 1993 before the Deputy Secretary to Government Revenue Department the copy of which has been produced with the additional affidavit-in-rejoinder (10) Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer submitted report under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act to the Stale Government. The translated copy of the said report is produced as Annexure-C to the petition wherein it is inter alia stated that Surat Municipal Corporation has received the sanction under Section 78 of the BPMC Act from the Urban Development Department Gandhinagar for the land in question In the Town Planning Scheme No 4 the land in question is included He further reported that as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court once the Town planning scheme is sanctioned proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are required to be stopped forth with He has also stated that the Government has sanctioned the town planning scheme and that the proposal for taking further proceedings under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is also submitted and if necessary it may be sanctioned (11) Subsequently the Special Land Acquisition Officer Surat received a letter dated 12th July 1993 from the Section Officer Revenue Department State of Gujarat stating that the proposal for sanctioning the notification under Section 6 cannot be accepted in view of the circular dated 20 June 1970 issued by the Revenue Department and that once the town planning scheme is sanctioned by the Government proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are to be closed forth with except in those cases where the lands are required to be acquired for the Corporations under the Government Government Departments except local bodies Municipal Corporations and Municipalities It is also stated that as soon as the Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned all those lands automatically vest in the local bodies He however stated that in the present case taking into consideration the objections submitted by the land holder and the legal position and the circular dated 20th June 1970 of the Revenue Department the Notification under Section 6 cannot be sanctioned Therefore the Special Land Acquisition Officer was requested to take necessary proceedings accordingly (12) Immediately the Special Land Acquisition Officer wrote a letter dated 15th July 1993 to the petitioner and informed him that the State Government has not accepted the proposal for publishing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. T. P. scheme has been sanctioned for the Land Acquisition Act has been closed. A copy of the said letter is produced at Annexure F to the petition. (13) The Land Acquisition Officer also informed the Municipal Corporation by letter dated 6. 8. 1993 that the State Government had not approved the Notification for acquiring the lands because of the Town Planning Scheme. That letter was received by the Municipal Corporation on 7. 8. 1993. Immediately the Commissioner of the Surat Municipal Corporation contacted the Additional Chief Secretary to take up the matter with the Revenue Department and also to issue Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act; the Commissioner pointed out to the Addl. Chief Secretary that the Town Planning Scheme was already finalised much before the land acquisition proceedings were initiated. (14) Subsequently the Land Acquisition Officer Surat by letter dated 30. 8. 1994 informed the petitioner that the Government Revenue Department has directed to initiate further proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are continued and letter dated 15. 7. 1992 stands cancelled. (Annexure Q to the petition) (15) On receipt of the said letter it is the say of the petitioners that: (a) they sent letter dated 20-9-1993 to the Land Acquisition Officer raising objection that the final decision has been taken and hence there was no justifiable ground to change the previous decision by simple letter and that they will take action considering that the decision of the Land Acquisition Officer communicated to them by letter dated 15. 7. 1993 was final (Annexure H to the petition); (b) they also wrote letter dated 29. 9. 1993 to the Minister Revenue Department protesting against the re-starting of the land acquisition proceedings; and (c) they received letter dated 30. 9. 1993 from the Land Acquisition Officer that the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the land has been forwarded to the Government and the land acquisition proceedings are not closed. (Annexure I ). Finally Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14. 10. 1993 for acquisition of lands for the public purpose of road and parking by the Surat Municipal Corporation (Annexure J to the petition ). (17) The petitioners also contended that they had filed an application for development of the land on 22. 3. 1994. Finally Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14. 10. 1993 for acquisition of lands for the public purpose of road and parking by the Surat Municipal Corporation (Annexure J to the petition ). (17) The petitioners also contended that they had filed an application for development of the land on 22. 3. 1994. (Annexurek ). That application is not decided by the Surat Municipal Corporation. Hence this petition is filed on 15. 2. 1994. wherein it is prayed that:- (a) The decision of the appropriate Government conveyed by letter dated 30. 8. 1993 (Annexureq) to restart the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land bearing final plot No. 274 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 4 at Navagam Surat be quashed and set aside. (b) Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which is published on 21. 10. 1993 (Annexure J) in respect of the final plot No. 274 be quashed and set aside. (c) By amending the petition the petitioners have further prayed that the order passed by the Municipal Corporation on 28. 2. 1994 rejecting the application for development of their land be quashed and set aside. II CONTENTIONS: ( 4 ) MR. Joshi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that:- (i) appropriate Government has taken decision to drop the land acquisition proceedings by not issuing the Notification under Section 6 after considering objections raised by the petitioners and the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5 (A ). Therefore issuance of the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is illegal and void. (ii) Enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act is quasi-judicial in nature and therefore the decision of the State Government on the basis of the report is also quasi- judicial in nature and hence it cannot be reviewed by the State Government. In the alternative even if the decision of the State Government is administrative in nature it cannot overrule the statutory bar provided in Section 5 (A) that decision taken by the State Government on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer is final. In any case the order to restart the acquisition proceedings is in breach of natural justice. (iii) Order of the statutory authority as communicated to the petitioner cannot be explained or justified by subsequent affidavits. In any case the order to restart the acquisition proceedings is in breach of natural justice. (iii) Order of the statutory authority as communicated to the petitioner cannot be explained or justified by subsequent affidavits. ( 5 ) WE agree with this contention that the order of the statutory authority cannot be explained or justified by subsequent affidavits. But in the present case the situation is altogether different. Hence this contention is not discussed in detail. (iv) The Land Acquisition proceedings cannot be proceeded further when the Town Planning Scheme is finalised. (v) Public purpose as stated in the Notification and actual purpose for which the land is required is different. (vi) The land acquisition proceedings are malafide and unreasonable. (vii) Permission for development cannot be rejected because the land is under acquisition. ( 6 ) AS against this Mr. Y. F. Mehta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government submitted that the State Government has never decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings but after considering the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer the proposed Notification under Section 6 was not approved because of legal objection raised by the petitioner and as pointed out by the Land Acquisition Officer that once the land is covered by the Town Planning Scheme the land acquisition proceeding could not be continued. Subsequently after considering the say of the Municipal Corporation and after obtaining the opinion from the legal department the Notification under Section 6 was approved. He pointed out that the legal department opined on 5. 10. 1993 that the case is under consideration and the circular of the Revenue Department dated 20. 6. 1970 is not applicable. The opinion of the Legal Secretary and RLA is annexed with the affidavit filed by Mr. S. M. Vanker Under Secretary Revenue Department. In the said opinion he has specifically mentioned that in order to seek clarification Officers of the Revenue Department and the Urban Development were called for discussion. Hence the Joint Secretary of the Urban Development Department has filed a written note which was kept in the file. After considering all these it was pointed out that in the development plan the disputed land is shown in the residential zone but according to the zone the purpose of the land i. e. parking purpose is permissible hence the land can be acquired for the said purpose. After considering all these it was pointed out that in the development plan the disputed land is shown in the residential zone but according to the zone the purpose of the land i. e. parking purpose is permissible hence the land can be acquired for the said purpose. If the authority takes decision that the disputed land near Railway Station is required for the purpose of widening the road or for parking plot the land can certainly be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence the purpose for widening the roads and parking plots is not in any way conflicting with the nature of the residential zone or of the Town Planning Scheme. Mr. Mehta. therefore submitted that as there was some misunderstanding between the two departments of the Government the opinion from the Legal Department was sought and after obtaining the opinion from the Legal Department. It was decided by the State Government to start the Land Acquisition proceedings and that the decision of the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat not to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings was reconsidered. ( 7 ) MR. Mehta therefore submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are required to be rejected. In the alternative it is submitted that in any set of circumstances considering the fact that the land was required for the purpose of widening the road for developing the railway station the court may not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners and in any event if required the court may pass appropriate directions similar to the one issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujjain Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Raj Kumar Johri. AIR 1992 SC 1938. ( 8 ) MR. Desai the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Surat Municipal Corporation submitted that the entire petition is based upon inter-departmental Communications between the two departments of the State of Gujarat and on intentional or unintentional mistake of the Land Acquisition Officer in communicating the inter departmental discussions to the petitioners at the earliest moments. ( 8 ) MR. Desai the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Surat Municipal Corporation submitted that the entire petition is based upon inter-departmental Communications between the two departments of the State of Gujarat and on intentional or unintentional mistake of the Land Acquisition Officer in communicating the inter departmental discussions to the petitioners at the earliest moments. He submitted that the petitioners have managed to obtain the opinion of the Revenue Department which was taken on 12th July 1993 immediately on 15th July 1993 He submitted that instead of communicating the opinion of the Revenue Department to the Municipal Corporation the Land Acquisition Officer communicated to the petitioners on 15th July 1993 while to the Municipal Corporation on 6th August 1993 As soon as the Municipal Commissioner received the said communication the Municipal Corporation contacted the Additional Chief Secretary and explained the entire position. Thereafter the dispute between the two Departments was referred to the Legal Department and the Legal Department finally opined that the land can be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. even though the lands are situated in the residential zone for the purpose of widening of road and for the purpose of parking plots at the railway station. He submitted that at no point of time the State Government had decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. He further submitted that from the record as it stands at the most it can be said that the Revenue Department has not approved the proposed Notification under Section 6 submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer alongwith his report under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act. He further contended that in any view of the matter the State Government has already decided by its resolution dated 31st July 1992 to acquire the said land for the public purposes of road and parking. That resolution is signed by the Under Secretary Urban Development and Urban Housing Department under the order and in the name of the Governor of the State of Gujarat. He therefore submitted that the State Government had already decided on 31st July 1992 that the land was needed for the public purposes and that the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act was sanctioned by the said resolution. He therefore submitted that the State Government had already decided on 31st July 1992 that the land was needed for the public purposes and that the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act was sanctioned by the said resolution. Once that was done it was not open to the Revenue Department to take a contrary decision in view of Section 78 of the BPMC Act read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. He further submitted that the decision under Section 5a is administrative in nature and that there was no bar for the State Government to issue Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as it is issued within the prescribed time limit of two years. He has also contended that the decision of the Revenue Department that because there is a town planning scheme the land acquisition proceeding cannot be initiated is totally misconceived bad and dehors the provisions of the Town Planning Act particularly when the land is required for the public purposes of road and parking and the said purposes would not be in any way inconsistent with the Town Planning Scheme. Mr. Desai pointed out that the contention that the acquisition proceeding is malafide or unreasonable is without any substance on any basis Lastly he contended that the Municipal Corporation has rightly rejected the application for developing the said plot because pending the acquisition proceedings the petitioners cannot be permitted to change the situation of the land by constructing building over it. ( 9 ) (A) Re: Main Contention that Acquisition Proceedings were dropped. Considering the aforesaid dispute the main question which is required to be answered in this matter is: whether the State Government decided to drop the acquisition proceedings on 12. 7. 1993 as contended by the petitioners ? answer: At no stage the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. Decision of the Revenue Department of not approving Section 6 notification would not amount to dropping of acquisition. For this purpose in our view it would be necessary to refer to the various affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the Surat Municipal Corporation Mr. Decision of the Revenue Department of not approving Section 6 notification would not amount to dropping of acquisition. For this purpose in our view it would be necessary to refer to the various affidavits filed on behalf of the parties. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the Surat Municipal Corporation Mr. Jivanbhai M. Patel the Town Planner of the Corporation has filed further affidavit on 10th October 1994 wherein it is stated that the Divisional Railway Manager (Works) Western Railway Bombay Central discussed with the officers of the Corporation about the plan for development of booking office alongwith waiting hall and other passenger amenities and parking place near the railway station at Surat on the eastern side. It was agreed that it will be set up by the railway authorities but the Corporation was required to give parking area and also approach roads. The plan was sent to the Divisional Railway Manager on 7 January 1988 Ultimately the railway authorities scrutinised the plan and approved the same and requested the Corporation to proceed for getting the land vacated and also requested the Corporation to provide approach roads as well as circulating area so that the Station building alongwith booking office can be planned by the railway office and that the Municipal Commissioner was informed about the same by the letter dated 8th October 1991 In the said letter it was pointed out that the station building alongwith the booking office can be planned by the railway and can be utilised when the approach road and circulating space is available on the Western side. Thereafter one Shri Acharya Mahaprabhuji Goswami produced plans before the Corporation for development of Final Plot No. 274. That application was rejected by the Corporation on 15th January 1992 Hence Shri Acharya Mahaprabhu filed SCA No. 393 of 1992 before this High Court inter alia contending that as no notification under Section 4 or Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for the proposed acquisition the plans submitted by the said petitioner cannot be withheld. Thereafter the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 27th February 1992 for acquiring the land for the purposes of road and parking for the proposed railway building. Thereafter the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 27th February 1992 for acquiring the land for the purposes of road and parking for the proposed railway building. Thereafter Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23rd October 1992 The Municipal Corporation all throughout pointed out to the Land Acquisition Officer that the land is required for the purpose of road and parking and the fact that the town planning scheme is finalised would not be a ground for not proceeding with the land acquisition proceedings. It is also stated in the affidavit that Surat City badly needs railway station on the Eastern side which is a thickly populated area and to facilitate the public at large staying in the eastern area. It was decided to have a railway station on the eastern side. It is pointed out that the project is very important so far as Surat City is concerned and that the railway authority cannot set up booking office and/or railway station till the acquisition of the land for parking and approach road to the railway station is completed. ( 11 ) AS against this the power of attorney of the petitioners has filed the affidavit-in rejoinder pointing out that by registered sale deed dated 29 October 1991 Acharya Govindlalji Goswami transferred the property under acquisition to the petitioners and that restarting of the acquisition proceedings by the respondents is illegal. In the further affidavit it is stated that the circular dated 20th June 1970 issued by the Stale Government is applicable. In the present case and that it was rightly decided by the Revenue Department to drop the acquisition proceedings. It is also contended that on account of the rejection of the development plans submitted by the petitioners for developing the land under acquisition the petitioners are suffering very tremendous hardships and are illegally deprived of their right to use the land. ( 12 ) IN the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government Revenue Department it has been specifically stated that the proposal to issue Notification under Section 6 was for consideration before the State Government. However the land- owners have filed their objections which were pending and therefore the notification under Section 6 could not be finalised. ( 12 ) IN the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government Revenue Department it has been specifically stated that the proposal to issue Notification under Section 6 was for consideration before the State Government. However the land- owners have filed their objections which were pending and therefore the notification under Section 6 could not be finalised. He has also stated that at the relevant time it was pointed out to the Land Acquisition Officer as also to the State Government that the land in question being situated in the town planning scheme may not be eligible for acquisition. In view of the Circular dated 20th June 1970 Therefore it was decided by the State Government in the Revenue Department at appropriate level that the acquisition of the said land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is likely to be illegal in light of the directions issued by the State Government by its Circular dated 20th June 1970 It is further stated as under:- accordingly the proposal of sanctioning and issuing Section 6 Notification was turned down by the letter written to Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12. 7. 1993. Thereafter the Urban Development and Urban Housing Department drew the attention of the Government that the town planning scheme sanctioned by the Government in 1982 has become non- operative as the development plan was prepared and sanctioned in 1986 and that the legal opinion whether the circular dated 20th June 1970 would be applicable or not was not obtained by the Revenue Department. Hence after obtaining the opinion from the Legal Department the Revenue Department reviewed its earlier decision and decided to issue notification under Section 6 immediately. It is specifically stated that the Government had neither issued any direction for withdrawing from the land acquisition nor had it dropped the proceedings. It is also stated that as no notification withdrawing from the Land Acquisition Act was published or issued or proposed it cannot be permitted to be said that the land acquisition in question is dropped but it amounts to suspension of the proceeding. It is also stated that as no notification withdrawing from the Land Acquisition Act was published or issued or proposed it cannot be permitted to be said that the land acquisition in question is dropped but it amounts to suspension of the proceeding. ( 13 ) AS there was an ambiguity and inconsistency with the affidavits filed by the Under Secretary and the Land Acquisition Officer wherein the Land Acquistion Officer has stated that by letter dated 15 July 1993 the petitioners were informed that the proceedings were dropped the Respondents were asked to file necessary affidavit by the Secretary Revenue Department. Thereafter an affidavit is filed by the Secretary Revenue Department on 27th October 1994 wherein it is stated that when the Notification under Section 6 was under consideration for the purpose of Issuance and publication serious thought was given to the report of the Land Acquisition Officer whether the land in question being covered in the town planning scheme may not become the subject matter of land acquisition proceedings. In the said affidavit it is also stated as under: i say that in view of the said discussion the concerned department did not approve the proposal of the Land Acquisition Officer publishing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the LAO was informed accordingly. I say that the Urban Development Department together with the Revenue took up the matter with the Legal Department and after a detailed consultation it was resolved that there was no legal bar in pursuing the matter under the Land Acquisition Act. It is also stated that thereafter the notice to the concerned persons occupying the land was given informing them that the land acquisition proceedings were continuing and they were given opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is specifically stated that at no point of time the State Government has chosen to drop the land acquisition proceedings regarding the land in question. It is also contended that on account of non-approval as to issuance of the Notification under Section 6 the petitioners have presumed or have given wrong interpretation that the land acquisition proceedings were droppd. It is stated that by non- approval of Section 6 Notification it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped or closed. It is also contended that on account of non-approval as to issuance of the Notification under Section 6 the petitioners have presumed or have given wrong interpretation that the land acquisition proceedings were droppd. It is stated that by non- approval of Section 6 Notification it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped or closed. It is further stated that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question were alive and finally looking to the pressing public need and larger public interest and the legal opinion it was decided that the land is required for the purpose of road and parking in the vicinity of Surat Railway Station and accordingly the State Government issued the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 14 ) BECAUSE of the aforesaid affidavits one filed by the Under Secretary and another filed by the secretary Revenue Department we have directed the learned Government pleader to produce the necessary file for our perusal. From the file which was produced before us it is clear that at no point of time the Government has taken a decision to drop the acquisition proceedings. It is true that the Deputy Secretary submitted a note on 2nd July 1993 to the Additional Chief Secretary wherein it was pointed out that in view of circular dated 20th June 1970 once town planning scheme is finalised the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act stand cancelled as the lands automatically vest in the local bodies under the town planning scheme. It was therefore pointed out that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act would be illegal. Below that note on 3rd July 1993 the Additional Chief Secretary has mentioned as under: Legal position being what it is; it would not serve any useful purpose in discussing the issue in a formal meeting with U. D. D. It is also stated this may be submitted to the Government. This note was placed before the Revenue Minister on 6th July 1993 and the Revenue Minister has signed below the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary. Thereafter on the next page it is mentioned. This note was placed before the Revenue Minister on 6th July 1993 and the Revenue Minister has signed below the signature of the Additional Chief Secretary. Thereafter on the next page it is mentioned. As the note dated 2nd July 1993 was approved by the Minister Revenue Department the Special Land Acquisition Officer Surat be informed that the acquisition proceeding as proposed by his letter dated 31st May 1993 is not to be taken as the T. P. Scheme was sanctioned. It is also noted that the Urban Development Department and the Urban City Development Department be informed accordingly. That note is dated 9th July 1993 Below that there is further note that on the basis of the aforesaid endorsement the Land Acquisition Officer Surat is informed by letter dated 12th July 1993 ( 15 ) FROM the aforesaid notes it cannot be stated that the Government has taken any decision to drop the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act It can be stated that the Revenue Department was of the opinion that in view of the circular issued by the Legal Department on 28th June 1993 and in view of the Town Planning Scheme No. 4 of 1980 sanctioned by the State Government the land was not required to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. We may note at this stage that the aforesaid view was patently illegal and erroneous because under the Town Planning Scheme the land was not reserved for the purpose of the Municipal Corporation or any other local bodies However we would deal with this aspect subsequently As against this the Urban Development Department of the State of Gujarat was of the view that the land was required to be acquired for a public purpose of roads and parking and that the said acquisition cannot be said to be in any way inconsistent with the town planning scheme ( 16 ) APART from this aspect it is to be further noted that on 29th September 1993 the Revenue Department received proposed notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act from the Land Acquisition Officer Surat and also on 30th September 1993 there is an endorsement to the affect that it is to be proceeded with subject to obtaining an opinion from the Legal Department As stated earlier after obtaining opinion from the Legal Departiment Section 6 notification came to be issued ( 17 ) FURTHER the opinion expressed by the Deputy Secretary Revenue Department on 2nd July 1993 (which is Finally approved by the Honourable Minister on 6th July 1993) is totally against the endorsement made by the Additional Chief Secretary Urban Development Department on 31st June 1993 below a note dated 18th June 1993 by the Additional Secretary Revenue Department In the note it is stated as under: agree We may obtain concurrence of UDD also that endorsement is dated 18th June 1993 Below that there is an endorsement by the Additional Chief Secretary Urban Development Department as under: please discuss quickly Contents above are not correct thereafter it seems that without there being any discussion the Additional Chief Secretary has made a note on 3rd July 1993 as under legal position being what it is; it would not serve any useful purpose in discussing the issue in a formal meeting with UDD ( 18 ) IN our view from the above facts and affidavits it is clear that at no point of time the State Government had taken a decision drop to the land acquisition proceedings There was constant difference of opinion with the Urban Development Department and the Revenue Department. Finally after obtaining an opinion from the Legal Department it was decided that the land is required to be acquired and thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued. Therefore it cannot be stated that previously the State Government had decided to drop the acquisition proceedings and that decision was reviewed or cancelled by the State Government by issuing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. As such as discussed above on record at no point of time the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. This is made clear by filing affidavits. The notes even endorsed by the Honble Minister of the Revenue Department would not mean that it was decided by the State Government not to acquire the land in question. The said endorsement would only mean that the note prepared by the Deputy Secretary was approved. (b) (i) In any case. the resolution dated 31st July 1992 which is a decision of the State Government is not cancelled or superseded. (ii) There is no resolution or proposal by Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act for dropping the acquisition proceedings. ( 19 ) THE fact remains that by resolution dated 31 July 1992 the State Government has approved the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation to acquire the land for the public purpose of road and parking near the Railway Station. That resolution is passed by the State Government because it is by the order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat. That resolution is to the effect that the land in question be acquired for Surat Municipal Corporation and that the proposal of the Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act was approved and sanctioned by the State of Gujarat. That resolution is at no point of time modified or cancelled by a subsequent resolution. Therefore inter departmental communication taking contrary stand on the basis of interpretation of circular cannot be basis for holding that the State Government had decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. ( 20 ) A Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S. B. Majmudar (as he then was) and K. J. Vaidya JJ.) in the case of Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel vs. State. ( 20 ) A Division Bench of this Court (Coram: S. B. Majmudar (as he then was) and K. J. Vaidya JJ.) in the case of Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel vs. State. XXXI (2) RLR 1043 had negatived similar contention by holding that the effect of such communication would be that the department was not inclined to proceed further with the acquisition and further acquisition proceedings remain suspended but before withdrawing the acquisition proceedings it was required to have a proposal to that effect from the Municipal Corporation which was acquiring body under Section 78 of the BPMC Act. In that case for a public purpose i. e. drainage disposal scheme of the Surat Municipal Corporation the land was sought to be acquired and for that notification under Section 4 was issued and subsequently notification under Section 6 was issued on 7th February 1986 It was inter alia contended on behalf of the petittioner that the first respondent after issuance of the impugned notifications had taken a policy decision to withdraw from the acquisition on 30th October 1988 under Section 48 of the Act and consequently all further proceedings for acquisition were null and void including the award dated 16th January 1989 For this purpose a letter written by the Section Officer Revenue Department State of Gujarat was relied upon and it was pointed out that in the said letter it was specifically stated that as the lands under acquisition were very fertile the Government had decided not to proceed further with acquisition proceedings and consequently the addressee may send proposal for releasing these lands from acquisition to the Government at the earliest. The Court has also noted that the aforesaid yadi/letter further recited that it was being written by the order of the Governor of Gujarat and in his name. The Court observed that the State Government can validly exercise its liberty to withdraw from acquisition of the concerned lands if it was so minded. However the moot question is whether it has so withdrawn from acquisition ? The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated at the behest of the 3 respondent-Municipal Corporation which had proposed acquisition of the land for installation of its drainage disposal scheme. However the moot question is whether it has so withdrawn from acquisition ? The Court held that the acquisition proceedings were initiated at the behest of the 3 respondent-Municipal Corporation which had proposed acquisition of the land for installation of its drainage disposal scheme. As the said propoal was accepted by the first respondent and concerned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued the State Government had to call proposal from the third respondent via second respondent and if such proposal had been moved by the third respondent then only a stage would have reached for the first respondent to withdraw from acquisition as required by Section 48 (1) of the Act. Therefater the Court has held as under: the Yadi at Annexure H though written in the name of the Governor of Gujarat had not stated that the State of Gujarat had decided to withdraw from acquisiton. The only decision which was conveyed by the First respondent as per Annexure H to the second respondent was that the State of Gujarat had taken a decision not to proceed with the said acquisition and before it decided to withdraw from acquisition it was required to have proposal to that effect from the third respondent which was the acquiring body and it has to re-send fresh proposal under Section 78 of the BPMC Act. As that stage never reached it cannot be said that the first respondent had taken a decision to withdraw from acquisition. The decision nor to proceed with acquisition which was conveyed by Yadi at Annexure H only meant that so far as the first respondent was concerned it was not inclined to proceed further with acquisition and from 13. 10. 1988 the date of the Yadi. Further acquisition proceedings remained suspended (Emphasis supplied) mr. Desai learned counsel for the Corporation pointed out that against the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court a Special Leave Petition was filed and that Special Leave Petition was also rejected by the Honble Supreme Court. . ( 21 ) IN the present case also the facts are similar. At no point of time the Surat Municipal Corporation has requested the State Government to drop the acquisition proceedings. . ( 21 ) IN the present case also the facts are similar. At no point of time the Surat Municipal Corporation has requested the State Government to drop the acquisition proceedings. On the contrary as stated earlier the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation was accepted by the State Government by passing a resolution dated 31st July 1992 (Annexure I to the affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation ). After passing the said resolution the State of Gujarat initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by issuing notification under Section 4. Thereafter on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer and by wrong interpretation of the circular issued by the State Government in 1970 and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court the Revenue Department thought that the acquisition proceedings cannot proceed further. On that basis a note was prepared by the Deputy Secretary and was finally submitted to the Honble Minister. However according to the Urban Development Department that view was contrary to the law and hence the matter was referred to the Legal Department. After obtaining the opinion from the Legal Department notification under Section 6 was issued. ( 22 ) AT this stage it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Kanaiyalal vs. State VII GLR P. 717. After obtaining the opinion from the Legal Department notification under Section 6 was issued. ( 22 ) AT this stage it would be worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Kanaiyalal vs. State VII GLR P. 717. In that case a Division Bench of this Court has conjointly considered the provisions of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 78 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 and held as under: the answer is provided by Section 78 the relevant portion of which is in the following terms:- 78 Whenever the Commissioner is unable under Section 77 to acquire by agreement any immovable property or any easement affecting any immovable property vested in the Corporation or whenever any immovable property vested in the Corporation is required for the purposes of this Act the Provincial Government may in its discretion upon the application of the Commissioner made with the approval of the Standing Committee and subject to the other provisions of this Act order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of the Corporation as if such property or easement were land needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 It will be seen that Section 78 empowers the Municipal Commissioner to move the State Government to acquire an immovable property in two cases either when the Commissioner is unable to acquire the immovable property by agreement under Section 77 or the immovable property is required for the purpose of the Municipal Act and when the Commissioner moves Stale Government in the manner prescribed in the Section the State Government is given the power to adopt proceedings for acquisition of the immovable property as if the immovable property was land needed for a public purpose. This power conferred under Section 78 is clearly an additional power which can be exercised by the State Government when moved by the Municipal Commissioners with the approval of the Standing Committee in either of the cases set out in the Section. Where the Government proceeds under Section 78 it is not necessary for the State Government to satisfy itself that the immovable property is required for a public purpose nor is it necessary for the State Government to comply with the requirements of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. Where the Government proceeds under Section 78 it is not necessary for the State Government to satisfy itself that the immovable property is required for a public purpose nor is it necessary for the State Government to comply with the requirements of Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act. All that is required is that the conditions of Section 78 must be satisfied and if they are satisfied the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act can be set in motion and the State Government can proceed to acquire the immovable property as if it were land needed for a public purpose. (Emphasis supplied) considering the aforesaid law it is apparent that once proposal of the Municipal- Corporation is accepted by the State Government the State Government is required to proceed with the land acquisition as if the said land were needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 Before accepting the proposal of the Corporation the State Government has discretion to accept or not to accept the said proposal but once the proposal submitted by the Municipal Corporation as provided under Section 78 is accepted it has to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings as if the land is required for a public purpose. As stated earlier the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation was accepted by the State Government by passing a resolution on 31st July 1992 once that is done in our view inter departmental discussion i. e. the discussion between the Revenue Department and the Urban Development and Urban City Development Department could hardly be a factor for holding that the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. ( 23 ) HOWEVER Mr. Joshi learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily relied upon the letter dated 15th July 1993 written by the Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioner for contending that as the petitioner had been informed that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. It is not open to the State Government to issue notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by reviewing or cancelling its earlier decision. ( 24 ) MR. It is not open to the State Government to issue notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by reviewing or cancelling its earlier decision. ( 24 ) MR. Desai learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that for some reason not known to the Corporation the Land Acquisition Officer was all throughout taking a stand in favour of the petitioner by pointing out that as the Town Planning Scheme No. 4 was sanctioned by the State Government the land could not be acquired and that without informing the Corporation for ulterior purpose he had written a letter on 15th July 1993 to the petitioners to the effect that the Government has not accepted the proposal for publishing Section 6 notification since the T. P. Scheme has been sanctioned for the land in question. The said letter also recites that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had been closed. ( 25 ) IN our view it would not be possible for us to draw any inference that because the Revenue Department has taken a decision on 12th July 1993 of not approving the Section 6 notification and that as the letter dated 15th July 1993 was written by the Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioner immediately he has acted malafide. In this petition that question cannot be gone into nor is required to be dealt with. ( 26 ) NOW considering the aforesaid letter dated 15 July 1993 in our view. It is nowhere stated that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were dropped or that the State Government has withdrawn from the land acquisition proceedings. The said letter only recites that the State Government had not accepted the proposal of issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as the T. P. Scheme was sanctioned. In our view from this letter it cannot be inferred that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. It only meant that for the time being the Revenue Department was not inclined to proceed further with the acquisition and the acquisition proceedings remained suspended. Same view is taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel [xxxi (2) GLR 1043]. It is clear that from the aforesaid letter it cannot be inferred that the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. Same view is taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel [xxxi (2) GLR 1043]. It is clear that from the aforesaid letter it cannot be inferred that the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. ( 27 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion it would not be necessary for us to deal with other contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the State Government has no authority to review or cancel the decision of dropping the land acquisition proceedings dated 12 July 1993 under Section 5a of the Act. As stated earlier there was no decision of the State Government to drop the land acquisition proceedings. (C) RE: Contention that once the State Government has taken a decision not to approve Section 6 notification of 12th July 1993 its power to issue notification under Section 6 is exhausted and it cannot be reviewed. Ans: In such a situation the jurisdiction to issue notification under Section 6 is not exhausted if it is issued within the prescribed time. (Refer: AIR 1980 SC 367 ) in support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel Mr. Joshi has heavily relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. vs. Vishnuprasad AIR 1966 SC 1593 Before discussing the aforesaid decision we would clarify that to overcome the difficulties which would have arisen because of the aforesaid decision the Parliament has amended the Land Acquisition Act and has clarified under Section 6 of the Act that it would be open to the State Government to issue different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by notification under Section 4 irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made under Section 5-A sub-section (2) of the Act. Further period of limitation is provided for issuance of Section 6 notification after issuance of Section 4 notification keeping this background in mind we would deal with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the State Government had decided not to issue Section 6 notification subsequently it was not open to the State Government to issue Section 6 notification. ( 28 ) WE would first reproduce the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case which are as under: while the survey is being done under Sec. 4 (2) it is open to any person interested in the land notified under Section 4 (1) to object under Section 5-A before the Collector within thirty days after the issue of the notification to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality. The Collector is authorised to hear the objections and is required after hearing all such objections and after making such further enquiry as he thinks necessary to submit the case for the decision of the appropriate Government together with the record of the proceedings held by him and report containing his recommendations on the objections. Thereafter the appropriate Government decides the objections and such decision is final. If the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company it has to make a declaration to that effect. ( 29 ) IN the present case neither the State Government nor the Land Acquisition Officer has arrived at a decision to the effect that the land is not needed for the public purpose. Even it is not the contention of the Land Acquisition Officer of the Revenue Department to that effect. ( 30 ) FURTHER after considering the various decisions the court further observed as under: there is nothing in Section 4 Section 5a or Section 6 to suggest that Section 4 (1) is a kind of reservoir from which the Government may from time to time draw land and make declarations with respect to it successively. ( 31 ) THE Court has also observed that once a notification under Section 6 is issued by particularising the land thereafter the notification under Section 4 (1) having served its purpose exhausts itself and that once the declaration under Section 6 particularising the area out of the area in the locality specified in the notification under Section 4 (1) is issued the remaining non particularised area stands automatically released. ( 32 ) THE Court thereafter dealt with the contention that Section 4 Notification would not be exhausted unless the order is passed under Section 48 withdrawing from acquisition. ( 32 ) THE Court thereafter dealt with the contention that Section 4 Notification would not be exhausted unless the order is passed under Section 48 withdrawing from acquisition. Negativing the said contention the court held as under: it is urged that the only way in which the notification under Section 4 (1) can come to an end is by withdrawal under Section 48 (1 ). We are not impressed by this argument. In the first place under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act (No. 10 of 1897) the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescindit. Therefore it is always open to Government to rescind a notification under Section 4 or under Section 6 and withdrawal under Section 48 (1) is not the only way in which a notification under Section 4 or Section 6 can be brought to an end. Section 48 (1) confers a special power on Government of withdrawal from acquisition without cancelling the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 provided it has not taken possession of the land covered by the notification under Section 6 the court further observed as under: - section 48 (1) thus gives power to Government to withdraw from the acquisition without cancelling the notifications under Sections 4 and 5 after notice under Section 9 (1) has been issued and before possession is taken. This power can be exercised even after the Collector has made the award under Section 11 but before he takes possession under Section 15. Section 48 (2) provides for compensation in such a case. The argument that Section 48 (1) is the only method in which the Government can withdraw from the acquisition has therefore no force because the Government can always cancel the notification under Sections 4 and 6 by virtue of its power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act and this power can be exercised before the Government directs the Collector to take action under Section 7 ( 33 ) IN our view the aforesaid decision would not be of any assistance to the petitioners in the present case. (a) The State Government has not passed any order withdrawing from the land acquisition proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act; (b) any order dropping of the proceedings under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act; and (c) any resolution cancelling its earlier resolution approving resolution of the Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act. Hence the State Government is required to proceed as if such land were needed for public purpose. ( 34 ) IN any case Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is amended and after the amendment the said provisions are interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases. For this purpose Mr. Metha Ld. AGP rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Bhogilal Keshavlal and Anr. AIR 1980 SC 367 In that case the Court after considering the earlier decision held that due to the invalidity of the notification under Section 6 the notification under Section 4 was not exhausted and that it still held the field. ( 35 ) THE Court referred to the following paragraph from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Behari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1964) 6 SCR 636 where in the court held as under:- the State Government realised that the notification was invalid and without waiting for an order of court cancelled the notification on April 28 1964 The cancellation was in recognition of the invalidity of the notification. The Government had no intention of withdrawing from the acquisition. Soon after the cancellation the Government issued a fresh notification under Section 6 whereas in this case the notification under Section 6 is incompetent and invalid. The Government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under Section 6. This is what in substance the Government did in this case. The cancellation on April 28 1964 was no more than a recognition of the invalidity of the earlier notification. ( 36 ) THE Court further referred to the earlier decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Musamiyan Imam Haider Bax Razvi 1976 Supp. This is what in substance the Government did in this case. The cancellation on April 28 1964 was no more than a recognition of the invalidity of the earlier notification. ( 36 ) THE Court further referred to the earlier decision in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Musamiyan Imam Haider Bax Razvi 1976 Supp. SCr 28 and held as under :- when a notification under Section 6 is invalid the Government may treat it as ineffective and issue a fresh notification under Section 6 and nothing in Section 48 of the Act precludes the Government from doing so. In that case the Court further observed as under:- the Government had no intention of withdrawing from the acquisition. Thereafter the Government issued a fresh notification under Section 6 making a declaration for acquisition of the land for a public purpose at public expense. There is nothing in the Act which precludes the Government from issuing a fresh notification under Section 6 if the earlier notification is found to be ineffective. ( 37 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court even in the case when notification under Section 6 is issued and is set aside by the Court or by the Government as is found to be ineffective the Government has power to issue fresh notification under Section 6 within the prescribed time. This would mean that the State Government is not precluded from issuing second notification. On the analogy of the same reasonings in a case where because of erroneous interpretation of law if the State Government does not approve notification under Section 6 it would not be precluded from issuing fresh notification under Section 6 after obtaining opinion from the Legal Department. ( 38 ) IN the present case there was no intention on the part of the Government to withdraw from the acquisition. May be because of the misinterpretation of the Supreme Court decision or circular the Revenue Department was insisting that the acquisition proceedings were illegal. As against this the State Government; by its resolution dated 31st July 1992 has specifically resolved that the land was required for public purpose and it has sanctioned the proposal of the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation. As against this the State Government; by its resolution dated 31st July 1992 has specifically resolved that the land was required for public purpose and it has sanctioned the proposal of the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation. Considering the aforesaid resolution if there was any intention on the part of the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition it would have done so by passing a resolution superseding the resolution dated 31st July 1992 Hence mere not approving Section 6 notification at one point of time does not preclude the State Government from issuing notification after discussing and verifying the legal position. (d) Re: Contentions that (i) Decision dated 12th July 1993 is final; (ii) its affect because of communication by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioners; (iii) Once town planning scheme comes into operation the land acquisition proceedings for the Corporation cannot be initiated. ( 39 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. Joshi appearing for the petitioners very vehemently submitted that as the State Government has decided not to approve the publication of the proposed notification under Section 6 by its decision dated 12th July 1993 it would amount that the State Government had decided not to issue the notification under Section 6 and to withdraw from the land acquisition proceedings. The said decision is final. In our view as discussed above this contention is misconceived. It is true that the Deputy Secretary Revenue Department has submitted a note that in view of the circular dated 20th June 1970 and the decision of the Supreme Court the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were illegal. That note was approved by the Additional Chief Secretary by stating that it may be submitted to the Government and that the legal position being what it was it would serve no useful purpose in discussing the issue in a formal discussion with the Urban Development Department. That note was placed before the Revenue Minister and he has signed the same (on 6th July 1993 Mr. Joshi relying upon this note submitted that this amounts to dropping of the land acquisition proceedings. In our view in the entire note which was produced for our perusal it is nowhere stated that the land acquisition proceedings should be dropped. That note was placed before the Revenue Minister and he has signed the same (on 6th July 1993 Mr. Joshi relying upon this note submitted that this amounts to dropping of the land acquisition proceedings. In our view in the entire note which was produced for our perusal it is nowhere stated that the land acquisition proceedings should be dropped. In paragraph 5 of the said note it is stated that considering the facts and the circular as the proposal for acquiring the land was illegal it is not required to be accepted. In paragraph 8 of the said note it is only mentioned that taking into consideration the relevant facts and the prevailing legal position the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act was illegal and therefore Section 6 Notification cannot be accepted and if the Urban Development Department intends to acquire the land it should do so by other means. ( 40 ) FOR this Mr. Desai Counsel appearing on behalf of Surat Municipal Corporation has submitted that some persons in the Revenue Department were creating hurdles in the way of acquiring the land for an important project. He submitted that this note was engineered by some persons and was accepted despite the fact that the Government has already passed a resolution on 31st July 1992 to acquire the land for the said project. He has submitted that the information with regard to the note submitted by the Deputy Secretary which was accepted by the Additional Chief Secretary and which it appears to have been signed by the then Revenue Minister was immediately communicated to the Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition Officer in turn communicated the same to the petitioners on 15th July 1993 As against this that information was communicated to the Municipal Corporation only by letter dated 6th August 1993 which was received by the Municipal Corporation on 7th August 1993 Thereafter the Municipal Commissioner drew the attention of the Additional Chief Secretary for taking up the matter with the Revenue Department. He submitted that after passing the resolution by the State Government accepting the proposal of the Municipal Corporation to acquire the land it is required to be presumed as provided under Section 78 of the BPMC Act that it was proved that the land was required for public purpose hence there was no option with the Revenue Department but to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. . ( 41 ) HE further pointed out that reliance placed by the Revenue Department on the Circular dated 20 June 1970 is totally misconceived and is also for some extraneous reasons otherwise the said Circular nowhere provides that the lands are not required to be acquired once the Town Planning Scheme was framed or finalised. He submitted that the said circular only provides that the land required for the purpose of the town planning Scheme cannot be acquired otherwise than under the Town Planning Act. ( 42 ) CONSIDERING the said Circular dated 20th June 1970 (Annexure E) it is apparent that it nowhere provides that the land cannot be acquired once the town planning scheme is finalised. On the contrary the said circular specifically provides that the State Government can acquire any land included in a Town Planning Scheme for a public purpose other than for which it is included in the Town Planning Scheme. The relevant part of the Circular is as under:- the effect of the final scheme is (a) all lands required by the local authority unless it is otherwise determined in such case vest absolutely in the local authority free from all encumbrances; (b) all rights in the original plots which have been reconstituted shall determine and the reconstituted plots shall become subject to the rights settled by the Town Planning Officer. The final Town Planning Scheme can be varied. The State Government can acquire any land included in a Town Planning Scheme for a public purpose other than for which it is included in the Town Planning Scheme. Further in the Circular the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 634 was also incorporated. The State Government can acquire any land included in a Town Planning Scheme for a public purpose other than for which it is included in the Town Planning Scheme. Further in the Circular the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas and Ors. AIR 1969 SC 634 was also incorporated. ( 43 ) IN the case of Shantilal Mangaldas (Supra) while dealing with the contention that Sections 53 and 52 of the Bombay Town Planning Act were violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India because once the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act compensation will be payable under the Land Acquisition Act while if land is acquired under the Bombay Town Planning Act the compensation which is payable is determined at a rate prevailing many years before the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published the Court held that the argument is based on no valid foundation. The method of determining Compensation in respect of lands which are subject to the Town Planning Scheme is prescribed in the Town Planning Act. The court further held as under:- The method of determining compensation in respect of lands which are subject to the town Planning Scheme is prescribed in the Town Planning Act. There is no option under that Act to acquire the land either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the Town Planning Act. Once the draft Town Planning Scheme is sanctioned the land becomes subject to the provisions of the Town Planning Act and on the final Town Planning Scheme being sanctioned by statutory operation the title of the various owners is readjusted and the lands needed for a public purpose vest in the local authority. Land required for any of the purposes of a town planning scheme cannot be acquired otherwise than under the Act. For it is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that when power is given under a statute to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. ( 44 ) THE aforesaid decision lays down that when the land is required for any of the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme it cannot be acquired otherwise than under the Town Planning Act. ( 44 ) THE aforesaid decision lays down that when the land is required for any of the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme it cannot be acquired otherwise than under the Town Planning Act. The decision of the Supreme Court only stales that once the Town Planning Scheme is finalised then the lands reserved and preceded for any of the purposes of the Town Planning Scheme automatically vest in the local authority. The aforesaid Circular of the State Government dated 20th June 1970 also provides to the same effect. There is no prohibition in the Town Planning Act either under the Bombay Town Planning Act or under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act to the effect that once the Town Planning Scheme is finalised or sanctioned land acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated for acquiring the land for other public purpose by the local authority. In paragraph 54 the Supreme Court has clarified that under the Bombay Town Planning Act 1955 there is no acquisition by the State Government of land needed for a Town Planning Scheme and when the Town Planning Scheme comes into operation the land needed by a local authority vests by virtue of Section 53 (a) and that vesting for purposes of the guarantee under Act. 31 (2) is deemed compulsory acquisition for a public purpose. ( 45 ) HOWEVER without referring to the above quoted part of para 2 in the circular or the Supreme Courts decision it seems that the concerned Officer has referred to the subsequent part of the said circular for arriving at the decision that once the draft Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government all land acquisition proceedings should be stopped as they become illegal thereafter without bothering to verify whether the land is reserved under the Town Planning Scheme for the Municipal Corporation. If the land is not reserved for the Municipal Corporation it cannot be said that the land vests in the Corporation. Hence it can be acquired for a public purpose. ( 46 ) FURTHER in the present case draft Town Planning Scheme was finalised in the year 1982. So final Town Planning Scheme came into operation in the year 1982. Hence after 10 years of finalisation of the Town Planning Scheme if the Corporation requires land for other public purpose it cannot be stated that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be resorted to. So final Town Planning Scheme came into operation in the year 1982. Hence after 10 years of finalisation of the Town Planning Scheme if the Corporation requires land for other public purpose it cannot be stated that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be resorted to. There is no such prohibition under the Town Planning and Urban Development Act or the Land Acquisition Act nor the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shantilal Mangaldas [ air 1969 SC 634 ] lays down such a proposition. ( 47 ) MR. Joshi Learned Counsel further submitted that in any case the Land Acquisition Officer has communicated to the petitioners by his letter dated 15th July 1993 that the proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act has been closed and that the Government has not accepted the proposal to issue Notification under Section 6 of the Act to acquire the land and the said decision cannot be reviewed or cancelled and that even if it was reviewed it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 48 ) AS discussed earlier the effect of communication by the Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated 15th July 1993 would only mean that for the time being the State Government has not approved proposal of issuing notification under Section 6 and that further acquisition proceedings remain suspended. In the aforesaid letter dated 15th July 1993 (Annexure-F to the petition) it is nowhere stated that the land acquisition proceedings were dropped. It is true that on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer the proposal to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act was not approved. As this proposal was contrary to the resolution passed by the State Government on 31st July 1992 and was itself contrary to the Circular dated 20th June 1970 issued by the State Government the dispute between the two departments of the State Government was resolved by referring it to the Legal Department and on the basis of the opinion of the legal Department the State Government has decided to issue the Notification under Section 6 of the Act within the prescribed time limit. ( 49 ) HENCE it cannot be said on the basis of any inter- departmental communication that the State Government has decided not to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. ( 49 ) HENCE it cannot be said on the basis of any inter- departmental communication that the State Government has decided not to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. In any set of circumstances in such a situation it is not necessary to give any further opportunity of hearing to the objectors. The Land Acquisition Act nowhere provides for any such procedure of giving further hearing to the objectors. In any case in the present case after receipt of letter dated 15th July 1993 the petitioner had made representation to the State Government. Therefore there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. ( 50 ) IN the above view of the matter in our view there is no substance in the contentions of Mr. Joshi Learned Counsel for the petitioners that:- (a) once a Town Planning Scheme comes into operation land acquisition proceedings cannot be initiated for the purpose of acquiring land for a purpose other than the purpose under the Town Planning Scheme. (b) there was no decision by the State Government to drop the proceedings or not to acquire the land. On the contrary the note of the Revenue Department clearly reveals that if the Urban Development Department intends to acquire the land it should do so by other means. ( 51 ) (C) Re: Contention that decision under Section 5 is quasi- judicial in nature. For contending that the decision of the State Government taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer is final and quasi-judicial in nature. Mr. Joshi Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 255 In our view before considering the said decision of the Supreme Court it would be necessary to refer to the decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayantilal Amratlal Shodhan vs. F. N. Rana and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 648 . ( 52 ) IN Jayantilals case (supra) the Supreme Court considered the contention whether the proceedings under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act were quasi-judicial in nature and that it cannot be delegated by the Commissioner and the report made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not in any event be considered by the Commissioner. ( 52 ) IN Jayantilals case (supra) the Supreme Court considered the contention whether the proceedings under Section 5a of the Land Acquisition Act were quasi-judicial in nature and that it cannot be delegated by the Commissioner and the report made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not in any event be considered by the Commissioner. After considering the scheme of the Act and various decisions the Supreme Court held that Prima facie the report of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5a would be an administrative report relying upon which the Government makes its decision under Section 6 whether or not to notify the land for acquisition; the decision that any particular land is needed for public purpose is an administrative decision and it is for the purpose of arriving at that decision that the Act requires that certain inquiries be made. The Court further held as under:- it is true that the Collector is required to follow the procedure prescribed and to give an opportunity to the objector of being heard in person or by a pleader. It is however open as Section 5a expressly provides to the Collector to make an independent inquiry apart from the inquiry on the objections submitted. It cannot in the circumstances be said that the inquiry is a judicial or a quasi judicial inquiry. (Emphasis supplied) ( 53 ) IN the case of Shyam Nandan Prasad (supra) the Supreme Court held as under:- sub-section (2) substituted in Bihar provides that every objection under Sub-section (1) shall be made in writing to the Collector who shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall after hearing all such objection and making such further inquiry if any as he thinks necessary decide the objection: Provided that the appropriate Government may either of its own motion or on the application of any person interested in the land call for the record of the proceedings held by the Collector and pass such order as he thinks fit; and further that the order of the appropriate Government and subject to such order the decision of the Collector under clause (i) shall be final. The Court further held that Since the decision of the Collector may turn out to be final unless interfered with by the Government suo motu or on application the Collectors decision is that of a quasi-judicial authority arrived at by quasi- judicial methods. ( 54 ) AS such in the present case it is not necessary to discuss the aforesaid question because we have arrived at the conclusion that at no point of time the State Government had decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings nor the State Government had decided not to acquire the land. On the contrary as discussed above by the Resolution dated 31st July 1992 the State Government has decided to approve the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the Surat Municipal Corporation and to proceed with the acquisition of the land in question under the Land Acquisition Act by considering that the land is deemed to be required for the public purpose as provided under Section 78 of the BPMC Act. ( 55 ) FURTHER the aforesaid two decisions were considered by the Division Bench of this High Court in Special Civil Application No. 12629 of 1993 with other Special Civil Application decided on 10th August 1994 wherein the court held as under:- the aforesaid observations have been made by the Honble Supreme Court in the context of the provision of the Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Bihar. In paras 8 and 9 of the reported decision the contents of Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act as it is applicable to the State of Bihar is referred to. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A as substituted in Bihar provides that every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made in writing to the Collector who shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by pleader and shall after hearing all such objections and making such further inquiry if any as he thinks necessary decide the objections. Thus as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 5-A of the Act as applicable to the State of Bihar it is the Collector who has to take the decision after making inquiry. While in the case of Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Gujarat the Collector has to make report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections. While in the case of Land Acquisition Act as applicable to the State of Gujarat the Collector has to make report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections. Thereafter the appropriate Government is required to take decision and the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections would be final. This is the vital distinction between the two provisions. We entirely agree with the above discussion. ( 56 ) (F) Re: MALA FIDE with regard to the contention that the proceedings are malafide or the acquisition is not for any public purpose in our view the said contention is without any basis or substances. For the alleged malafides in paragraph 11 of the petition it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that only at the behest of Mr. Mavani MLA who is seeking to further his personal interest at the cost of the petitioners that the impugned acquisition proceedings have been restarted and therefore the impugned action of the respondents constitutes abrogation of discretion colourable exercise of power fraud on the statute malafide illegal and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. It Should be noted that in this petition Mr. Mavani against whom allegations are made is not joined as a party respondent. The allegations are absolutely vague. It is not stated how Mr. Mavani has influenced the State Government in deciding to acquire the land or restart the proceedings. On the contrary as discussed earlier considering the file which was produced before this court for our perusal it does not appear therefrom that Mr. Mavani has done anything so as to influence the State Government to acquire the land. ( 57 ) HOWEVER Mr. Joshi further referred to and relied upon the averments made by the Power of Attorney of the petitioners in the affidavit in rejoinder which are as under:- i state that there are letters of Shri Keshubhai Patel Shri Kashiram Rana and Shri Mavani. addressing to the authorities demanding that the lands under acquisition be acquired immediately irrespective of any earlier decision. I state that in view of the pressure mounted by the politicians at the highest level the decision to restart the proceedings was taken in hot haste without following the procedure of taw. addressing to the authorities demanding that the lands under acquisition be acquired immediately irrespective of any earlier decision. I state that in view of the pressure mounted by the politicians at the highest level the decision to restart the proceedings was taken in hot haste without following the procedure of taw. ( 58 ) IN our view the aforesaid averments are without any basis and therefore there is no substance in the contention that the land acquisition proceedings are initiated malafide. ( 59 ) (G) Re: Contention that there is difference between stated public purpose in the notification and the actual requirement. Mr. Joshi submitted that the public purpose stated in the notice and the actual purpose for which the land is required is different. In our view there is no substance in this contention because in the notification issued under Section 6 (Annexure to the petition) it has been specifically stated that the land is required by the Surat Municipal Corporation for providing road and parking facilities at the Eastern side of Railway Station at Surat. It is not disputed that the land is required for the said purpose as Western Railway requires the land for providing appropriate booking office alongwith waiting hall and other facilities to the passengers on the Eastern side of the Railway Station. Hence this contention also requires to be rejected. ( 60 ) (H) Re: Rejection of application for development. Mr. Joshi further contended that as the order passed by the Municipal Corporation rejecting the application of the petitioners for developing the land is arbitrary it requires to be quashed and set aside. In our view when the land is acquired for the public purpose of providing circulating road and parking facilities near the Surat Railway Station the Municipal Corporation cannot be directed to permit the petitioners to make construction over it. Hence this contention also requires to be objected. CONCLUSION . In our view when the land is acquired for the public purpose of providing circulating road and parking facilities near the Surat Railway Station the Municipal Corporation cannot be directed to permit the petitioners to make construction over it. Hence this contention also requires to be objected. CONCLUSION . ( 61 ) FROM the aforesaid discussion it can be held that: (i) At no stage the State Government has decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings; (ii) Decision taken by the State Government vide its resolution dated 31st July 1992 approving the proposal of the Surat Municipal Corporation under Section 78 of the BPMC Act to acquire the land is not revoked cancelled superseded or modified by any resolution; (iii) The Surat Municipal Corporation has never sent a proposal under Section 78 of the BPMC Act for dropping the land acquisition proceedings. Hence the State Government is required to proceed with the land acquisition as if the said lands were needed for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (iv) Decision dated 12th July 1993 of the Revenue Department not approving the proposal to issue section 6 notification was based upon manifestly erroneous interpretation of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shantilal Mangaldas [ air 1969 SC 634 ]. That view was changed after obtaining opinion from the Legal Department. The inter-departmental communication would not mean that the State Government had decided to drop the land acquisition proceedings. (v) In cases where Section 6 notification is held to be illegal or ineffective or treated to be ineffective by the State Government it is open to the State Government to issue fresh notifcation under Section 6 [re: Bhogilal Keshavlal AIR 1980 SC 367 ]. Hence in a situation where for erroneous reason if Section 6 notification is not approved it would not debar the State Government to proceed further with the land acquisition under the Act after obtaining opinion from the Legal Department. (vi) Communication by letter dated 15th July 1993 by the Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioners would only mean that further acquisition proceedings under the Act remain suspended. [re: Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel XXXI (2) GLR 1043]. (vi) Communication by letter dated 15th July 1993 by the Land Acquisition Officer to the petitioners would only mean that further acquisition proceedings under the Act remain suspended. [re: Kikabhai Ukabhai Patel XXXI (2) GLR 1043]. (vii) Neither the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act nor the Land Acquisition Act provides that if the Town Planning Scheme is finalised the local authorities cannot acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act if the land is required for a public purpose which is not covered by the Town Planning Scheme. (viii) Contention with regard to malafide is without any foundation or basis. ( 62 ) IN the result there is no substance in the petition and it is therefore rejected. Notice discharged. The interim relief if any stands vacated. ( 63 ) MR. Joshi Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the operation of this order may be stayed for four weeks. However considering facts stated above and the importance of the land acquisition proceeding and the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties in our view this request requires to be rejected and is therefore rejected. ( 64 ) IN Civil Application No. 2640 of 1994 which is filed on 17th November 1993 the petitioners have prayed that the Respondents be directed to produce the entire file containing the notings decision documents etc. in respect of the land acquisition proceedings for the petitioners land. In our view such a prayer cannot be granted. The decisions taken by the Government are on record. Further the entire file was produced before the Court for our perusal and we have permitted Mr. Joshi to inspect some of the correspondence from the said file. Hence this Civil Application No. 2640 of 1994 is rejected. Petition Dismissed. .