Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 86 (GUJ)

MOHANLAL NANABHAI CHOKSY v. STATE

2002-02-01

B.C.PATEL, SHARAD D.DAVE

body2002
B. C. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, by this petition, have challenged the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `acquisition Act) [annexure-H and Annexure-J dated 09/02/1990 and 11/02/1991 respectively] and have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or appropriate writ directing the respondents not to acquire the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed that the action of acquisition is bad in the eye of law and Surat Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as the `corporation] has no authority or jurisdiction under law to acquire the lands for any such public purpose [establishment of vegetable market] and the authority under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the `produce Act) is the only competent authority to establish market. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the owners of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 1587 to 1596, 1597-A-Part, 1599 to 1601 of Ward No. 4 of Taluka Choryasi of Surat city. It is the case of the petitioners that the property is fully constructed and occupied by tenants. The petitioners have contended in paragraph - 4. 2 of the petition that the acquisition is only with mala fide intention and in colourable exercise of the powers. According to the petitioners, there is no need to acquire the land for the said purpose. The petitioners have relied on news items published in newspapers, copies of which are placed on record at Annexures D and E. As contended by the petitioners, at a distance of 475 mtrs. only, there is existence of Sardar market. For extension of Sardar market, the land was sought to be acquired, for which, a petition was filed in the High Court. It is also pleaded by the petitioners in paragraph - 4. 5 that the decision has been taken by the Corporation to shift the said Sardar market and the lands are reserved in the development plan of Surat Urban Development Authority (SUDA) for the purpose of vegetables market. It is also pleaded that the decision is taken to shift the said market on account of congestion and traffic problems. According to the petitioners, there is one Saliya market located at Jhampa Bazar, at a distance of 250 mtrs. It is also pleaded that the decision is taken to shift the said market on account of congestion and traffic problems. According to the petitioners, there is one Saliya market located at Jhampa Bazar, at a distance of 250 mtrs. from Danapith Vegetable Market and, therefore, there is no need to acquire the lands for vegetable market. 2. 1 with regard to issuance of notifications, the petitioners have stated that notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act was issued on 07/12/1989 for the purpose of vegetable market and objections were filed on 12/03/1990, a copy of which is produced on record vide Annexure-I. The petitioners have contended that on account of traffic-block, it was impossible for the citizens to stay in the area, more particularly because two schools and two cinemas are located in the area. It is further contended in paragraph - 4. 7 of the petition that the development plan, which was prepared by SUDA under Section 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the `development Act), is itself bad and illegal and, therefore, no acquisition can be made on relying upon the said plan. The petitioners have pointed out that there are other lands which can be acquired for the vegetable market. The petitioners have suggested that land bearing Survey No. 1696, Ward No. 4, known as `navabvadi can be acquired. The petitioners have further suggested that the lands belonging to the Government and Corporation can be used for the purpose of construction of vegetable market. The petitioners have averred that the land which was acquired for slaughter house, has been released because of some influential persons. The petitioners have suggested that this area can be utilised for the purpose of establishing vegetable market. It is contended that despite the objections, notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act has been issued on 08/02/1991, a copy of which is produced on record at Annexure-J. 2. 2 the petitioners sought amendment of the petition and raised a contention that the decision was taken to shift Sardar market in the area of Dumbhal at a distance of 1. 00 km. away from the market and 1. 5 kms away from the lands in question sought to be acquired. 2 the petitioners sought amendment of the petition and raised a contention that the decision was taken to shift Sardar market in the area of Dumbhal at a distance of 1. 00 km. away from the market and 1. 5 kms away from the lands in question sought to be acquired. The petitioners have come out with the case that a scheme is being proposed for establishment of a very good market by the Market Committee. It is further contended that the construction of new market is completed and the market was scheduled to open on 27/12/1997 and for this purpose, a copy of invitation card is also produced on record. As contended in the petition, 285 licences were to be issued in favour of dealers in vegetables in retail as well as wholesale. Reliance is placed on Annexure-C for the said purpose. It is further contended that in view of the existing market yard, there is no need to acquire the lands of the petitioners. 2. 3 it is contended by the petitioners that agricultural produce market is situated at Survey Nos. 28 to 31 covering village Dumbhal, area admeasuring about 1,08,000 sq. mtrs. of land. It is contended that when such a big market yard is already constructed, there is no question to proceed with the acquisition. The petitioners have contended that it is the duty of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to build a vegetable market and to give facilities to the agriculturists. It is further contended that no person can operate in the area since the market committee has already constructed a vegetable market. According to the petitioners, reading the contentions raised and argued before us, it is only Agricultural Produce Market Committee within the area that can run the market and the Municipal Corporation has no business to establish the vegetable market. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, Jivanbhai M. Patel, Town Planner of Surat Municipal Corporation, has filed an affidavit on 17/06/1991. He has pointed out that the land in question has been placed under reservation for the purpose of vegetable market in the development plan prepared by SUDA under the provision of the Development Act, which has become final. He has pointed out that the land in question has been placed under reservation for the purpose of vegetable market in the development plan prepared by SUDA under the provision of the Development Act, which has become final. He has further stated that under Section 17 of the Development Act, the development plan has become final and under Section 20 of the Development Act, the land which is reserved for the public purpose is to be acquired under the Acquisition Act. He has also averred that it is not correct to say that a policy decision has already been taken to shift Sardar market as alleged. 3. 1 about the property in question, it is pointed out that it is not fully constructed as alleged. Most of the land is open and the existing structures are very old. He has further pointed out that construction is unauthorized and is made without obtaining permission of the respondent-corporation. 3. 2 with regard to Sardar market, the deponent has pointed out that it is a wholesale market and it is situated at a ring-road of 150 ft. The land in question is at very far distance and located in interior part from the said market. The say of the petitioners that Saliya market, Jhampa Bazar and Danapith market are very nearer to the land in question as alleged, is also denied. With regard to Sardar market, it is contended that it is run by Agricultural Produce Market Committee and the market in question, which is to be constructed, will be run by the Municipal Corporation as per the need of the public residing in the locality. Surat Municipal Corporation has no concern with shifting of Sardar market. The deponent has further pointed out that the vegetable market is to be established on the land in question as a retail market and not as a wholesale market. The contention with regard to existence of Saliya market, Danapith market and vegetable market situated within distance of 1 km. has been denied and as a matter of fact, it is specifically stated that Sardar market, Danapith market, Saliya market are situated at a distant place. The contention with regard to existence of Saliya market, Danapith market and vegetable market situated within distance of 1 km. has been denied and as a matter of fact, it is specifically stated that Sardar market, Danapith market, Saliya market are situated at a distant place. With regard to the question raised by the petitioners that the land is reserved for the purpose of vegetable market in the development plan, it is pointed out by the deponent on behalf of the Corporation, that after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the land is reserved for the vegetable market as the said development plan is already sanctioned by the State Government and the land is to be acquired for the purpose of vegetable market. It was contended on behalf of the Corporation by the learned Counsel that once the development plan is sanctioned, it is in the shape of the Act and that is required to implemented. 3. 3 the deponent had denied that there are numerous tenants in the lands as alleged. It is also denied that the land acquired by the Corporation within the city of Surat are not being utilised for the purpose for which the lands were acquired and are being encroached upon by lari-gulla owners. The deponent has further contended that all the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 5 (A) of the Acquisition Act are considered and being untenable, cannot be accepted and the State Government has rightly issued notification under Section 6 of the Act. The deponent has denied the allegation made by the petitioners that it has become regular feature of Surat Municipal Corporation to acquire land of various occupiers from time to time and thereafter denotify the lands of influential persons who can approach them properly as alleged. The deponent has averred that allegation is made without basis and only to prejudice the Court. The Corporation is established under the provisions contained in Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the `bpmc Act) and the Corporation is required to act in the larger interest of public and has to take decision in the interest and welfare of residents of Surat city. The deponent has specifically denied the allegation in paragraph - 19 of his affidavit that Sardar market, Danapith market and Saliya market are used as vegetable markets. The deponent has specifically denied the allegation in paragraph - 19 of his affidavit that Sardar market, Danapith market and Saliya market are used as vegetable markets. About Sardar market, it is pointed out that it is situated near main S. T. Bus-Station and Railway Station and it is in view of this, Agricultural Produce Market Committee is considering to shift the said market and Surat Municipal Corporation is not in any way concerned with the Sardar market. ( 4 ) THE petitioner no. 2 has filed an affidavit on 16/10/1998 along with annexures and documents to substantiate his say that the construction was carried out, for which, there is a reference in a `sanad of Secretary of State in Council issued by the Survey and Settlement Officer - Surat, partition deed etc. There are photographs produced by the petitioners on record and that makes it clear that the entire property is not constructed, structures are old and all the structures except one are having ground floor only and that too having roof of Indian tiles. Some photographs indicate that by putting corrugated sheets, part of the property is being used either for storage of goods or for keeping animals. The Corporation has pointed out that the structures on the land bearing Survey Nos. 1587 to 1593 are kuchcha construction without any roof and it was constructed on 01/05/1994. No permission was taken from any authority. Even after final development plan, no permission is taken under Section 28 of the Development Act. It is pointed by the Corporation that mere payment of taxes for utilizing the facilities would not convert illegal construction into legal construction. ( 5 ) THE Town Planner, Ketanbhai Sumanbhai, has filed an affidavit on 25/10/1998. Along with the affidavit, Annexure-A, resolution passed by the Corporation is produced on record. Reading the same, it clearly appears that major part of the land is open and the constructed property is very old. The land admeasures 7168. 09 sq. mtrs. From the Annexure-I, it is clear that construction is of approximately 668. 9 sq. mtrs. only and, therefore, it is clear that major portion of the land is open, i. e. , hardly 1/10th part of land is occupied by the structure [nature of which we have referred hereinabove from the photographs]. The land admeasures 7168. 09 sq. mtrs. From the Annexure-I, it is clear that construction is of approximately 668. 9 sq. mtrs. only and, therefore, it is clear that major portion of the land is open, i. e. , hardly 1/10th part of land is occupied by the structure [nature of which we have referred hereinabove from the photographs]. It is pointed out that the resolution passed for acquiring land in question is under Section 78 of the BMPC Act. After approval of the State Government, communicated vide letter dated 13/07/1981, proceedings commenced. In the meanwhile, the development plan was prepared and in the said development plan, the land in question was reserved for the purpose of vegetable market. Thus, the land was required for the public purpose as per Section 78 of the BPMC Act and as per Section 12 (2) (B) read with Section 20 of the Development Act. ( 6 ) WITH regard to Sardar market, it is pointed out that the development is wholly irrelevant and the said market is far away from the land in question which is on the highway. The said market is established by Agricultural Produce Market Committee which would cater the needs of wholesalers and not of retailers and consumers in general. 6. 1 on behalf of the petitioners, on 25/09/2001, an affidavit was filed, inter alia, stating that the land is no more required in view of the fact that the reservation made by SUDA in final development plan under Section 17 has now been dropped and the land is dereserved from the reservation. The deponent, on behalf of the petitioners, has averred that by a notification of the State Government (Urban Development and Urban Housing Department) under Section 17 of the Development Act dated 17/05/2001, the lands, which were reserved for vegetable market, are now released from the reservation and item no. 148 of the said notification reads as under:"148. THE lands being C. S. No. 1587 to 1596, 1597/a/p, 1599 to 1603 of Ward No. 4 of Surat City are reserved for vegetable market SMC (C-7) shall be deleted from the said reservation and the lands so released shall be designated for residential use under Section 12 (2) (a) of the Act as shown on accompanying plan No. 9. "6. "6. 2 it was contended that in view of the notification, even Surat Municipal Corporation cannot construct a vegetable market as the same is to be used for residential purpose only. It is in the aforesaid background, the petition is required to be considered. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the last point first, it is required to be noted that by the notification dated 17/05/2001, which is produced on record at page-202, the land is now proposed to be designated for residence. The notification makes it clear that it is a draft development plan and by notice under section 15 of the Development Act, suggestions or objections are invited from persons with respect to the proposed modification. It is merely a proposal to modify the aforesaid draft revised development plan. Reading the notification, it is clear that the Government has invited suggestions or objections with respect to the proposed modification to be submitted to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Development Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. The law is very clear that after considering the objections and suggestions, the revised development plan will have to be published. Therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be said that in Entry No. 148, decision is reflected but only a proposal is reflected. 7. 1 on behalf of the Corporation, it was made clear that even the Corporation has raised objections with regard to this land also. In the petition, there is no challenge to the development plan which has become final under the provisions contained in the Development Act. Till the draft is not approved, the petitioners cannot state that the same is required to be taken into consideration. On behalf of the Corporation, it was rightly submitted that before the development plan was at the draft stage, the decision was taken by the Corporation to cater the needs of the people and to acquire the land in question for a vegetable market. Before it could take further steps, the State Government published the plan and the lands in question are kept under reservation for a vegetable market for Surat Municipal Corporation. On behalf of the Corporation, it was submitted that therefore decision of the Corporation even till today stands for acquisition of the land for vegetable market. Before it could take further steps, the State Government published the plan and the lands in question are kept under reservation for a vegetable market for Surat Municipal Corporation. On behalf of the Corporation, it was submitted that therefore decision of the Corporation even till today stands for acquisition of the land for vegetable market. ( 8 ) THE petitioners contention is that there were three markets, namely, Sardar, Saliya, Jhampa Bazar, Danapith and therefore, there was no earthly reason for the Municipal Corporation to establish a vegetable market in the area in question. The petitioners have averred in paragraph - 4. 5 that three markets are within a distance of less than 1. 00 km. However, to substantiate this aspect, the petitioners have not produced any material on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, requested the Court to look at the map, which is produced on record. From the map, it clearly transpires that there are railway tracks leading to Ahmedabad-Bombay (Navsari) and just adjacent to the railway tracks, there is a ring-road of 132 ft. From the map, it appears that this area is situated in the Town Planning Scheme No. 6, Khatodara. Sardar Market is on the main road which is also clear from the map produced before the Court. It is known that the ring-roads are provided for easy traffic and fast movement of the people. So far as the property in question is concerned, from the map, it transpires that it is in interior part and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it is nearer to Sardar market. Saliya market is situated far away and one has to cross a long distance. It is in this background, the say of the respondent - Corporation which comes from the Town Planning Officer is required to be taken into consideration. In paragraph - 13 of the affidavit, the Town Planning Officer has stated that Sardar Market is a wholesale market and it is situated on the ring-road of 150 ft. The lands in question are at a very far distance located in the interior part from the said market. He has further pointed out that Saliya, Jhampa Bazar, Danapith markets are not nearer to the lands in question as alleged. The lands in question are at a very far distance located in the interior part from the said market. He has further pointed out that Saliya, Jhampa Bazar, Danapith markets are not nearer to the lands in question as alleged. ( 9 ) IN view of the map produced on record and the version coming from the Town Planning Officer, the contention raised by the petitioners must be rejected in this behalf. It is required to be noted that the Municipal Corporation, a public body, is required to take decision for the welfare of the people. They were aware that Sardar market is wholesale market as repeatedly stated in the affidavit and not denied by the petitioners. It is required to be noted that the Municipal Corporation, which is expected to function in the interest of public at large, has to take impartial decision and is obliged to provide vegetable market so as to see that the people residing in the vicinity are not required to move far to purchase their daily necessities. 9. 1 one important aspect required to be borne in mind is that unlike the western countries, urban population in India are not possessing vehicles and are staying in the cities. Unlike the western countries, people in India by and large are not possessed of facilities such as refrigerators to store vegetables. Unlike the western countries, people in India are not in a position to spend money at a time so as to collect the vegetables from the market and store for a week or fortnight. Again one has to remember that climatic condition in the country is quite different. Looking to the climatic condition, fresh vegetables are also advisable and it is for that reason also, people are not in habit of buying vegetables and fruits in bulk. Instead of purchasing once in a week or fortnight, people prefer to buy fresh vegetables daily. Peoples capacity to spend money is also required to be borne in mind. For a longer distance, people will require to pay more amount for conveyance and there will be congestion of traffic at one place on account of city being over crowded. Therefore, it is bounden duty of local bodies, such as Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat, to provide at certain places vegetable, fruit markets etc. For a longer distance, people will require to pay more amount for conveyance and there will be congestion of traffic at one place on account of city being over crowded. Therefore, it is bounden duty of local bodies, such as Municipal Corporation, Municipality or Panchayat, to provide at certain places vegetable, fruit markets etc. so as to see that the people can reach the markets early without spending much time for purchase. This will also help the vegetable-vendors and they would not require to sell vegetables in larris or patharanas. They will have a safer place for dealing in the commodities. This would also help the people and there will be easy traffic. In these circumstances, the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation to establish a vegetable market cannot be stalled on flimsy grounds. In absence of availability of vegetable market and fruit market and as people have no capacity to travel long distance or to spend money at a time, the people move to nearer place for buying their daily necessities and that gives opportunity to the vendors to sell vegetables or fruits or such commodities in larris. This situation creates traffic hazard which causes pollution and several other problems. Therefore, in our opinion, it is absolutely necessary for the Municipal Corporation or Local Authority to establish vegetable market and such other markets in every locality so as to cater to the needs of the people. Local Bodies are there to cater to the needs of the people and to look after their day-to-day problems such as markets, roads, sewage, electricity, water, crematorium, public garden, etc. It is in view of this, the legislature in the Development Act has provided this aspect. Considering the need of the people, the decision taken by the Municipal Corporation would serve the public purpose. ( 10 ) IN the instant case, it is placed on record that the lands were to be acquired for the public purpose namely, the market. Under the provisions contained in the BPMC Act, there are obligatory and discretionary duties of the Corporation as defined in Chapter VI of the Act. Section 63 provides for obligatory duties. Subsection (12) of Section 63 reads as under:"63. Under the provisions contained in the BPMC Act, there are obligatory and discretionary duties of the Corporation as defined in Chapter VI of the Act. Section 63 provides for obligatory duties. Subsection (12) of Section 63 reads as under:"63. (1) it shall be incumbent on the Corporation to make reasonable and adequate provision, by any means or measure which it is lawfully competent to it to use or to take, for each of the following matters, namely :- (12) the construction or acquisition and maintenance of public markets and slaughter houses and the regulation of all markets and slauthger houses;"section 66 provides for discretionary duties, which reads as under:"the Corporation may, in its discretion, provide from time to time, either wholly or partly, for all or any of the following matters, namely :- (42) any measure not herein before specifically named, likely to promote public safety, health, convenience or instruction. "10. 1 learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that reading Secs. 63 and 66 of the BPMC Act, to provide a market is the requirement either obligatory or discretionary. Reading Sub-section (12) of Section 63 and Sub-section (42) of Section 66, it is very clear that it is obligatory duty of a Corporation to construct and maintain the public market and for that purpose, the Corporation can take appropriate action as provided under the Act. Sub-section (42) of Section 66 provides for an activity likely to promote public safety, health and convenience. Any purpose which directly benefits the public or the section of the public is a public purpose. Shops would cater the needs of the persons living in the locality. Residents of the locality would have to go to distant parts of the city for shopping if the shopping centre or a market or a shopping site is not provided by the Corporation in the vicinity. Facility would add to the comfort and convenience of the persons living in the vicinity. Reading the scheme of the Act, it is very clear that there is provision for establishment or construction of markets. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Municipal Corporation was not competent to make a recommendation by a resolution and in the instant case a provision is made in the scheme itself and thus, requirement is approved by the Government and, therefore, the contention has no merit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Municipal Corporation was not competent to make a recommendation by a resolution and in the instant case a provision is made in the scheme itself and thus, requirement is approved by the Government and, therefore, the contention has no merit. ( 11 ) A contention was raised that the Corporation has no right to acquire the lands and at the most, the State Government can acquire the land. This question is no more required to be considered by this Court as in the case of Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai vs. State [ 1966 GLR 717 ], the Division Bench of this Court construed the provisions of Section 78 of the BPMC Act. The Court has held that "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 : 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. The power conferred on the State Government under Section 78 is, therefore, far from being a limitation on the State Government under Section 6, an extension of that power which can be availed of where the conditions specified in Section 78 are fulfilled. "11. The power conferred on the State Government under Section 78 is, therefore, far from being a limitation on the State Government under Section 6, an extension of that power which can be availed of where the conditions specified in Section 78 are fulfilled. "11. 1 the Apex Court confirmed the said decision which is reported in A. I. R. 1970 SC 1188 and held that "by statutory provision, it is expressly enacted that where the purpose is one for which the Commissioner of the Municipality may require the land under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, or is a purpose of the Act for which it is deemed necessary or expedient by the Commissioner of the Municipality to acquire the land, such a purpose shall be regarded as a public purpose within the meaning of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, even if it does not fall within the expression `public purpose as normally understood. " ( 12 ) WHEN the acquisition is sought to be made for the public purpose, it is not open to challenge. In the case of Smt. Somavanti vs. State of Punjab [a. I. R. 1963 SC 151], the Apex Court laid down the principle that conclusiveness in Section 6 (2) of the Acquisition Act must necessarily attach not merely to a `need but also to the question whether the purpose was a public purpose. The Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram v. State of Hariyana reported in A. I. R. 1971 SC 1033 observed that "so long as it is not established that the acquisition is sought to be made for some collateral purpose, the declaration of the Government that it is made for a public purpose is not open to challenge. " ( 13 ) ). IN the case of Land Acquisition Collector vs. Durga Pada reported in A. I. R. 1980 SC 1678, the Apex Court reiterated the view taken in the case of Ratilal vs. State of Gujarat [a. I. R. 1970 SC 984] and Jage Ram (Supra) and observed that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act raises the presumption that the land is required for the public purpose and to dislodge the presumption by alleging mala fide or colorable exercise of power the heavy burden lies on the party making such allegations. In the case of Jage Ram (Supra), the Apex Court held that `it is not open to this Court to go behind the declaration and find out whether the purpose for which the land was needed was a public purpose or not. ( 14 ) CONSIDERING the provisions of the BPMC Act, the Acquisition Act and the pronouncements of the Apex Court, once notification under Section 6 is published after complying with the provisions of the Acquisition Act, there is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. ( 15 ) IN the case of Kalidas Gopalbhai Patel v. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 1990 (2) G. L. H. 96, the Division Bench of this Court after examining the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Acquisition Act pointed out that `it is now well settled that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is conclusive evidence that the land proposed to be acquired is needed for the public purpose and the Court cannot go into the question as to whether the need is genuine or not unless the Court is satisfied that the action taken is fraudulent or colourable exercise of power or mala fide. ( 16 ) IN the case of Hasmukhlal Bhagwandas vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1996 (1) G. L. R. 365, the Division Bench of this Court considered the question of shopping center to be provided by Surat Municipal Corporation. It would be relevant to refer to paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the said judgement. "17. IN the instant case, there is a specific reference to the property to be acquired and for a purpose which is specifically mentioned as `shopping centre, i. e. , a market. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Venkatamma and Ors. vs. City Improvement of Trust Board, Mysore and Ors. , reported in 1973 (1) SCC 188 , "according to Sec. 15 (2) (d) the Scheme may provide for the establishment or construction of markets. " Under the BPMC Act, there is a clear provisions which is in the form of obligatory nature for the Corporation to provide a market. In the case of Venkatamma (supra), the argument was that the land cannot be acquired for shopping sites because the law provides for the scheme for establishment or construction of markets. " Under the BPMC Act, there is a clear provisions which is in the form of obligatory nature for the Corporation to provide a market. In the case of Venkatamma (supra), the argument was that the land cannot be acquired for shopping sites because the law provides for the scheme for establishment or construction of markets. We find no difference between a market and a shopping centre. Shop is a building or room set apart for sale of merchandise. The word `shopping conveys activities of visiting a shop or shops for the purpose of making purchase or of examining the goods exposed for sale. The word `market indicates marketing or congregating together of people for the purchase and sale of provisions or live-stock publicly exposed at a fixed time and place. A public place whether an open space or covered building , in which, cattle, provisions, etc. are exposed for sale is known as a `market or shopping centre. 18. MISS. Shah read out meaning of word `market by referring several dictionaries. In the case of Bombay Municipality vs. Yenkanna Ellappa Balaram, Division Bench of Bombay High Court, reported in A. I. R. 1926 Bom. 413, described the word `market as under :-`the ordinary meaning of the word `market is that of a concourse of buyers and sellers occurring periodically at a certain spot, for the purpose of retail trade; but the word is used in many sense, and a market may be held in a building, or enclosure, or in the open, as in a market place, and the concourse may occur daily or weekly and be held for the purpose of buying or selling any kind of article. The meaning of the word given in the Standard Dictionaries to which we have been referred, consequently varies, and the result seems to be that a market is one of those events which, owing to the variety in the instances, is incapable of definition in the true sense of that word, that is, by the characteristic or crucial mark common to all the instances, and that, it is a thing which can only be described. Thus, it is very clear that in a common place either in open or in a building or enclosures, vendors offer their goods to the buyers. It may be called a `market or a `shopping centre. Thus, it is very clear that in a common place either in open or in a building or enclosures, vendors offer their goods to the buyers. It may be called a `market or a `shopping centre. If in open space goods are sold by the vendors, yet it will be known as a market and when there are shops or the premises enclosed wherein the goods are offered will be known as `market. The shopping centre indicates a fixed place where commodities will be available and, therefore, in our opinion, the market and the shopping centre is one and the same thing. With the advanced technology and facilities, better facilities are provided in the building were vendors are selling their goods. Shopping centre is an area or complex of shops with associated facilities. 19. IN towns, where vast land was available, shops were constructed in a row without having storeys and that was known as market. But since few years in cities, vast land is not available and concept of multi-storey buildings being accepted, facilities are provided in such buildings and such buildings where there are shops are known as `shopping centres. Thus, in a market or in a shopping centre, there are shops where vendors are dealing / supplying. xxx xxx xxx21. IN the facts and circumstances of the above case, the Court negatived the contention that the land for shopping site is not being acquired for a public purpose. The Court further held that, `but for the shops proposed to be built, the residents of the locality would have to go to distant parts of the city for shopping, the building of shops in the locality would add to the comfort and convenience of the persons living there. Accordingly, the land is being acquired for a public purpose and in view of this position, the facts which are similar to the facts of the present case. Miss Shahs contention is required to be rejected. " ( 17 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that under the Produce Act, it is not open for the Municipal Corporation to establish vegetable market. The said act is to consolidate and amend law relating to the regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce and establishment of market for agriculture produced in the State of Gujarat. " ( 17 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that under the Produce Act, it is not open for the Municipal Corporation to establish vegetable market. The said act is to consolidate and amend law relating to the regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce and establishment of market for agriculture produced in the State of Gujarat. The statement of objects and reasons is also required to be considered [published in Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary, Part-V, dated the 22/03/1963, Page. 165]"note. 1 Statement of objects and reasons-Guj. Act 17 of 1985 - [pub. in Guj. Govt. Gaz. , Ex. Pt. V dt. 17-6-1985, p. 16-14] - In order to ensure proper planning and development of agricultural produce markets all over the State in a balance manner as also to provide among other things, technical, financial and legal assistance to market committees, it was proposed to establish a Statutory Board under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (Guj. XX of 1964) to be called the Gujarat State Agricultural Marketing Board consisting of not more than twenty elected and nominated members. The Central Govt. , which extends financial assistance under the central scheme for development of regulated market yards, and sub-market yards, had also made a suggestion for the establishment of such a statutory Board in the State. . . . . . "xxx xxx xxx this indicates as to why in the year 1985, it was felt that there is necessity to have provisions for ensuring proper planning and development of agricultural produce markets. ( 18 ) IN the instant case, the petitioners are neither agriculturists nor the purchasers of agricultural produces as specified in the schedule nor dealers in such commodities nor office bearers of Surat Agricultural Produce Market Committee, nor have right to make grievance on behalf of Surat Agricultural Produce Market Committee. In the instant case, it is the case of the respondent-Corporation that it being a local authority, it is bounden duty of the Corporation to provide a market so that the retailers and the consumers can have no difficulty in sale/purchase of commodities. Schedule to the Act, if referred, it has reference to fibres, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, narcotics, fruits, vegetables, animal husbandry products which include butter, ghee, milk, etc. , condiments, spices and other, grass and fodder, cattle seeds etc. Schedule to the Act, if referred, it has reference to fibres, cereals, pulses, oilseeds, narcotics, fruits, vegetables, animal husbandry products which include butter, ghee, milk, etc. , condiments, spices and other, grass and fodder, cattle seeds etc. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that if any one wants to deal in any of the commodities mentioned in the schedule, one must have licence under the Produce Act. He further submitted that there must be general or special licence under Section 27 or licence under Section 6 granted under the Produce Act. He further contended that "market" means a market declared or deemed to be declared under the Act and it is the only place where persons can deal in the commodities referred in the schedule. He further submitted that `market area means any area declared or deemed to be declared a market area under the Produce Act and in that market area except, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, none is authorized to issue licence. He further submitted that "retail sale" is defined in subclause- (xviii) of Section 2 of the Produce Act which means that a sale of any agriculture produce not exceeding such quantity as a market committee may be byelaws determine to be a retail sale in respect of such agricultural produce. The Produce Act defines the word "trader" which means that any person who carries on business of buying, selling of agricultural produce or of processing of agricultural produce for sale and includes a cooperative society, agent, joint family of an association of persons, whether incorporated or not, which carries on such business. ( 19 ) SECTION 5 refers to declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area. Our attention was drawn to Section 6 of the Produce Act which provides for declaration of market area. ( 19 ) SECTION 5 refers to declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area. Our attention was drawn to Section 6 of the Produce Act which provides for declaration of market area. Subsection 2 of Section 6 reads as under: Section 6 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, from the date on which any area is declared to be a market area under subsection (1), no place in the said area shall be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification in the accordance with the provisions of the Act: Provided that pending the establishment of a market in such area the Director may grant a licence to any person to use any place in the said area for the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce and a licence so granted shall, unless, it is cancelled or otherwise ceases to be in force, continue in force until the establishment of a market in the said area and for such period thereafter as may be prescribed. ( 20 ) LEARNED Counsel submitted that irrespective of the provisions contained in any other Act when the area is declared market area then no place in the said area shall be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification in accordance with the provisions of the Act. We are not concerned with the proviso as there is no question of establishment of market being continued. However, what is important to note is that the prohibition will apply to the commodities mentioned in the notification and not to all the commodities mentioned in the schedule. It will not apply to retail sale even if commodity is covered. Under the Produce Act, the board with previous approval of the State Government can make regulations, not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder. The Market Committee may, in respect of the market area and Agriculture Produce for which it is established, make byelaws, not inconsistent with the act and rules made thereunder for regulation of business and conditions of trading in the market area. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules under Section 59 of the Produce Act. . The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules under Section 59 of the Produce Act. . ( 21 ) READING the provisions, it appears that all trades in agricultural produce in the market are sought to be brought within regulatory provisions of the Act. Under the Bombay Act, 22 of 1939, there was an express provision made in the Bombay Act, 22 of 1939, which excluded from the operation of subsection (2) of Section 4 of that Act sale of agricultural produce by way of retail sale. Under the Gujarat Act no such exclusion is expressly prescribed. But, apart from the generality of the provisions made in the Gujarat Act and the omission of retail sales from the scheme of exclusion, the Act and the rules clearly indicate that retail sales are not sought to be regulated by the provisions of the Act. It was contended before us that in case of Jan Mohammad Noor Mohamad Bagban vs. The State of Gujarat and Another reported in A. I. R. 1966 SC 385, the Apex Court examined the scheme and held that retail sales are not sought to be regulated by the provisions of the Act. The view taken by the Apex Court was on the basis of the provisions made in the Bombay Act, 22 of 1939. It was submitted that the Apex Court in case of Jan Mohmmad (supra) observed that:"it may be noticed that the State of Gujarat has not framed any new Rules. The Rules framed under the Bombay Act, 22 of 1939, remain in operation by virtue of Section 64 of the Gujarat Act and the rules framed under the Bombay Act 22 of 1939, have been framed on the footing that no retail sale is sought to be regulated thereby. the Act read together with the rules does not purport to place any restriction upon retail transactions in agricultural produce. Therefore, no licence is required under the Gujarat Act for carrying on retail trade in agricultural produce in the market area, and there is no prohibition against the carrying on the retail sale in agricultural produce in the market. "it was submitted before us that since rules have been framed, it cannot be said that now, the retailers are not covered by the provisions made under the Produce Act and the Rules. "it was submitted before us that since rules have been framed, it cannot be said that now, the retailers are not covered by the provisions made under the Produce Act and the Rules. ( 22 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has not produced bye laws framed by the Market Committee determining retail sale of the commodities specified in the notification. Therefore, obviously, the retailers are not covered under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. In view of the provisions indicated earlier, submissions have no merit. ( 23 ) IT is required to be noted that whether the licence is required by the retailer or not, is a question to be raised by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of the concerned area for agricultural produce specified in the notification as it will be an aggrieved party to raise the dispute. The petitioners have no right to raise disputes which can be raised by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee only. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioners have no right to prefer a petition raising the contentions which are not available to them. ( 24 ) SO far as the trader is concerned, "trader" is a businessman in the sense that like any other trader or a businessman while purchasing the agricultural produce, he is not in a position to strike a deal and then to sell it of at the highest possible price, keen of course to have a margin of profit as much as his grade and the circumstances would permit him to have. The retailer is, really speaking, a link between the ultimate consumer and the trader. The retailers are merely supplying small quantity to the downtrodden class or the ultimate consumers directly and they are not in a position to control the price and not in a position to store vegetables regularly and looking to the nature of material, in which they deal, namely vegetable being a commodity which loses its value by passage of time, are required to be disposed of in limited quantity by end of the day. It is difficult to stretch them within the meaning of `trader. The legislature has, therefore, made a provision of `retailer. Various provisions are referring to `trader and not to `retailer and that is only with a view to see that `retailer is not to be brought within the purview of the Act. It is difficult to stretch them within the meaning of `trader. The legislature has, therefore, made a provision of `retailer. Various provisions are referring to `trader and not to `retailer and that is only with a view to see that `retailer is not to be brought within the purview of the Act. ( 25 ) THE Apex Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Puri and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in A. I. R. 1980 SC P. 1008 has examined the scheme of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1962 and after considering various aspects, in paragraph 25 pointed out that "one thing is certain that the whole of the market area in no sense can be equated with market or market proper. No body can be allowed to establish a purchasing centre of his own at any place he likes in the market area without there being such a permission or authority from the Market Committees. After all the object of the Act is to supervision and control of the transactions of purchase by the traders from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the latter by the former. The supervision and control can be effective only in specified localities and places and not throughout the extensive market area. " ( 26 ) HERE, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that vegetable market to be established will be a place where traders will be buying vegetables from the agriculturists. It is the case of the respondent-Corporation that, that market will be a place where people will be allowed to buy vegetables in retail and, therefore, considering the provisions of the Act, it is clear that provisions for sale and purchase in market or sub-yard will not apply to the retailers dealing in small quantities. ( 27 ) THE word "trader" as defined under subsection xxiii of Section 2, is required to be considered. Here, `trader would be a person buying or selling agricultural produce for sale. Thus, traders are permitted to purchase agricultural produce from the agriculturists and are permitted to sell the same to others for sale. The trader may be a purchaser of agricultural produce. He may be selling agricultural produce for sale. An agriculturist who is a producer himself may be a trader. Thus, traders are permitted to purchase agricultural produce from the agriculturists and are permitted to sell the same to others for sale. The trader may be a purchaser of agricultural produce. He may be selling agricultural produce for sale. An agriculturist who is a producer himself may be a trader. The common men who are buying their day-to-day commodities would not buy in bulk and it would not be possible for the common man to buy 100 gms. leafy vegetables or 1. 00 kg. ptotato from the wholesale dealer. Even it would be impossible for the wholesaler to supply in the small quantity. In the market area, there are market-yards where several trucks or truckload of agricultural produce is brought and there, it is impossible to expect that number of people will go to the market with cotton bags in their hands to buy one or two kilograms of vegetables. They will have to approach a vendor and not a trader. The legislature keeping this aspect in mind has provided for retail sale which means a sale of any agricultural produce not exceeding such quantity as a market committee may by byelaws determine to be a retail sale in respect of such agricultural produce and such retailer would be deemed to be the vendors and not the traders. Again in absence of notification, as contemplated in subsection (2) of Section 6, it would not be possible for this Court to say that all the commodities are covered by the notification. So far as retail sale is concerned, it is for the market committee to determine the quantity to be declared for the purpose of retail sale. In absence of notification, the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved party and cannot request this Court to rely on schedule. ( 28 ) IN the case of M/s Fulabhai Govindbhai vs. The Kaira District Tobacco Market Committee and Another reported in 1971 G. L. R. 71, the Court considered the various provisions contained in the Produce Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Court pointed out that `the provisions of the Produce Act and the Rules and Bye-laws framed thereunder are for seeing that the agriculturists who produce tobacco in his filed gets the maximum price for his agricultural produce. The Court pointed out that `the provisions of the Produce Act and the Rules and Bye-laws framed thereunder are for seeing that the agriculturists who produce tobacco in his filed gets the maximum price for his agricultural produce. The Court further pointed out that `each and every producer of tobacco in the market area is not bound to take his goods to the principal market yard or the sub-market yard, if any. But, so far as the regulation of the traders is concerned, no trader can operate in the entire market area unless he has a licence and by licensing and keeping control over his transactions, the Market Committee sees to it that proper prices are paid and that the traders carry out the terms and conditions of their licences and do not in any manner act contrary to the interests of the producers. Thus, the scheme of the Act is to see that the producers are to be protected and traders who are dealing with producers may not take advantage of the situation and, therefore, where producers and traders are dealing, the question is to be examined but where the matter is pertaining to vendors buying articles from the traders and supplying to the ultimate consumers, there is nothing in the Act to indicate that the transactions between the ultimate consumers and the vendors is controlled or that prohibits Local Authority to provide vegetable market and to offer shops to vegetable vendors. ( 29 ) RULE 56 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the `rules) provides for licensed traders and general commission agents. Rule 56 of the Rules, if read, it becomes clear that a person who desire to do business as a trader or a general commission agent in agricultural produce in any market area or part thereof has to follow procedure and has to obtain a licence. Reading this provision, it becomes very clear that the law contemplates that in the market area or part thereof if the person wants to trade or engage himself either as a trader or a general commission agent then he has to obtain a licence. So far as the wholesale market is concerned, it provides a place for convenience to the bulk suppliers, i. e. , traders as well as producers. So far as the wholesale market is concerned, it provides a place for convenience to the bulk suppliers, i. e. , traders as well as producers. ( 30 ) IN the case of Dhari Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Another vs. Chavda Rajabhai Valibhai and Another reported in 1990 (1) G. L. R. 529, the Court was required to examine, whether an approved agent of the Government as a dealer in fair price shop would require a licence or not. The Court pointed out that `as a condition precedent, licence is necessary only in those cases, wherein any person is desiring to do a business as a "trader" or a "general commission agent" in agriculture produce (in any market area). 30. 1 the Court also pointed out that `it is necessary to bear in mind the powers and duties of the Market Committee as provided in Sections 23, 26, 27 and 30 of the Produce Act. On examination of the aforesaid provision, the Court pointed out that it is very clear that the Market Committee is fully empowered under the said Act to enter and search any place, premises or a vehicle in order to carry out and implement the objectives of the Act. The said Market Committee is also empowered to remove an unauthorised person from the market, i. e. , the person carrying on business as a trader or as a commission agent or as a broker as defined in the Act prejudicially to the interest of the poor, illiterate and ignorant agriculturists. 30. 2 the Court pointed out that when a person requires to obtain a licence, he must fall within the ambit of the word "trader" or any other provisions of the Market Act. ( 31 ) IT is the case of the Corporation that in the market, consumers will buy commodities for their day-to-day need in retail from the vendors. It would be relevant to refer to Rule 54 (1) of the Rules. ( 31 ) IT is the case of the Corporation that in the market, consumers will buy commodities for their day-to-day need in retail from the vendors. It would be relevant to refer to Rule 54 (1) of the Rules. "rule 54 (1) place of sales of agricultural produce in the market : (1) all agricultural produce arriving into the market shall be brought into the principal market yard or sub - market yard in the first instance and shall not be brought or sold any any place out side such yards:provided that ginned cotton, husked paddy, groundnut seed split, pulses and tobacco may be sold any where in the market area in accordance with the provisions of bye-laws. (2) details of all agricultural produce resold in wholesale in the market are shall be reported to the market committee. (3) any person who contravenes the provisions of this rule shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500. 0031. 1 reading the aforesaid rule, it is very clear that the all agricultural produce arriving into the market is to be brought into the principal market yard or sub market yard. Even with regard to produces resold in wholesale in the market are to be reported to the Market Committee. Once agricultural produces or articles are resold to a vendor by a trader for sale to an ultimate consumer, it is difficult to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Produce Act would be attracted to such sale to ultimate consumers or that the Corporation cannot establish a market for the need of the people at large. ( 32 ) RULE 58 of the Rules mandates that every trader, general commission agent, broker, weighman, measurer and surveyor licenced under the Rules shall keep such books in such form as the market committee may from time to time direct. They are also required to submit their books of account, ledgers etc. for examination and inspection under Rule 59 of the Rules. Every licenced trader, general commission agent, weighman, measurer, surveyor may be required to produce for examination all and every scales and weight and measure used, kept or possessed by him or by any person or persons under his authority or control. for examination and inspection under Rule 59 of the Rules. Every licenced trader, general commission agent, weighman, measurer, surveyor may be required to produce for examination all and every scales and weight and measure used, kept or possessed by him or by any person or persons under his authority or control. ( 33 ) THUS, scheme of the Act and the Rules, if perused, it becomes clear that provisions are made so as to cover transactions in bulk but not in retail. If the producer himself is a seller and purchaser purchases for his own private consumption then provisions contained in subsection (2) of Section 6 would not apply. If the petitioners wanted to believe that all the articles mentioned in the schedule irrespective of quantity to be sold were covered by the provisions contained in the act, they ought to have produced notification before the Court as the agriculture produce specified in the notification would be the subject matter and to be governed under the provisions of the Produce Act and not otherwise. ( 34 ) AS indicated earlier that as the Corporation has decided to establish a vegetable market so as to cater the needs of individuals, it is safe to presume that the Corporation wanted to only provide a space to the vendors so as to enable them to supply vegetables at a known place and also to assist the people to buy vegetables from a market where the vendors would deal in small quantity. The Corporation will have no authority with regard to the procedure as prescribed under the Produce Act. If the law contemplates that a licence is required, it would be for the vendors, to apply and to obtain a licence. Merely because the Municipal Corporation, being a local authority, is providing a place, it cannot be said that the Corporation is to carry on business in the agricultural produce. ( 35 ) BEFORE us, the learned Counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of the bye laws made by the Market Committee which is known as `agricultural Produce Market Committee Sub-Rules (upvidhio)". Condition No. 18 refers to shop-keepers, lariwalas or hawkers pertaining to D - Grade. It specifically states that such vendors, hawkers or lariwalas shall purchase from the main market the commodities which are covered under the notification and they shall not sell to any one other than the consumers. Condition No. 18 refers to shop-keepers, lariwalas or hawkers pertaining to D - Grade. It specifically states that such vendors, hawkers or lariwalas shall purchase from the main market the commodities which are covered under the notification and they shall not sell to any one other than the consumers. It further provides that such vendors, lariwalas or hawkers will not be permitted to sell on one licence at several places at the same time. Thus, even as per the contention raised by the petitioners, which is based on the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the restriction applies only in case when there is transaction between the producer and the trader, but it does not apply to sale where the vendors, lariwalas or hawkers are supplying the commodities to the direct consumers. Restriction is only with regard to sale at one place only. This will apply only to the commodities which are the subject matter of the notification to be dealt with by the Market Committee and not all the commodities mentioned in the Schedule. Reading of the provisions of the Act together with the Rules does not purport to place any restriction upon retail transaction. At the most, it can be said that the retail trader may require to have a licence. But, in absence of the bye laws and the notifications indicating the agricultural produces are covered by the notifications, we find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. ( 36 ) FROM these provisions, it is clear that at the most, if the item is specified in the notification and if the area is notified by the market committee then a person has to obtain a licence and to carry on business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence. There is no restriction that a person or association of persons or corporation cannot provide a market to cater the needs of the people. It will be for the vendors, dealing in the commodities, to obtain licence, if covered under the notification and bye laws framed by the Market Committee if determines retail sale. ( 37 ) MR. Desai, learned Counsel submitted that this petition is not required to be entertained as the petition is not properly affirmed as per the Rules. It will be for the vendors, dealing in the commodities, to obtain licence, if covered under the notification and bye laws framed by the Market Committee if determines retail sale. ( 37 ) MR. Desai, learned Counsel submitted that this petition is not required to be entertained as the petition is not properly affirmed as per the Rules. In the affidavit, the petitioners have merely stated as under:"i, Anilkumar Mohanlal Choksy, petitioner No. 2 herein do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath that what is stated hereinabove is true to my knowledge and submissions of law are believed by me to be true. "37. 1 the affidavit is not in accordance with Rules. When the petition is presented before the Court, it must separately and specifically state facts (i) based on personal knowledge, (ii) based on information, and (iii) based on belief, and petitioner must give source of information and if based on belief, then, grounds of belief. There must be separate paragraph for each submission which can be dealt with. Despite several decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, if the petitioners file vague affidavits, then, they are not required to be encouraged. In the case of V. H. Mehta vs. D. A. V. New High School reported in 1998 (3) G. L. R. 1849, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 pointed out as under:"15. THE Apex Court in the case of A. K. K. Nambiar vs. Union of India, reported in A. I. R. 1970 SC 652 emphasising the importance of verification, has observed as under:the reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegation may be true to information received from persons or allegation may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence. IN case of Shivaji Rao vs. Dr. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In absence of proper verification, affidavits cannot be admitted in evidence. IN case of Shivaji Rao vs. Dr. Mahesh Madhave reported in A. I. R. 1987 SC 294 in para 38, the Court observed as under:our attention was drawn by learned Counsel Dr. Singhvi on the observations of this Court in the Barium Chemical Ltd. vs. The Company Law Board, 1966 (supp.) SCR 311 : [a. I. R. 1967 SC 295], where at page 352 (of SCR) : [at p. 319 of A. I. R. ] of the report of the Court observed that where evidence was adduced by affidavits, such affidavits might be properly verified either on knowledge or from sources. But, the basis of such knowledge or source of information must be clearly stated. This was laid down as early as 1909 by Jenkins, C. J. and Woodroffe, J. , in Padambati Dasi vs. Rasik Lal Dhar, (1990) ILR 37 Cal. 259, where the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the provisions of Order XIX, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be strictly observed; every affidavit should clearly express how mush is a statement of the deponents knowledge and how much of the statementwas in his belief, and the grounds of belief must be stated with sufficient particularity. This has been followed more or less universally by Courts in matters where reliance is placed on affidavits. This view has been reiterated by this Court in State of Bombay vs. Purshottam Jog Naik, 1952 SCR 674 : [a. I. R. 1952 SC 317]. It is on this principle that Dr. Singhvi urged that the original petition should not have been entertained because of the defective affidavit in this case. Undoubtedly, the affidavit and the petition were defective as mentioned hereinbefore. "16. IN the proceedings before the Court, ordinarily the Court accepts the sworn statement made in the petition. The Court accepting such statements passes even interim orders. Therefore, it is the duty of the party filing petitions before the Court to make true, correct and accurate statements, stating as to what portion of the petition is true to his personal knowledge and what portion of the petition is true to his information or belief stating the reasons thereof. The Court accepting such statements passes even interim orders. Therefore, it is the duty of the party filing petitions before the Court to make true, correct and accurate statements, stating as to what portion of the petition is true to his personal knowledge and what portion of the petition is true to his information or belief stating the reasons thereof. " ( 38 ) MR. Desai invited our attention to the Apex Courts Judgement in the case of Smt. Savithramma vs. Cecil Noronha and Ors. reported in A. I. R. 1988 SC 1987, wherein the Court has pointed out requirement of valid and acceptable affidavit. According to him, this is not a valid and acceptable affidavit and, therefore, the petition should not be entertained. 38. 1 the petitioners have come to the Court by stating that the property is fully constructed and occupied by the tenants. the petitioners have not produced any material to substantiate their say. On the contrary, the record reveals that the say of the petitioners is false. The land admeasures 7168. 09 sq. mtrs. Out of which, only 668. 9 sq. mtrs. is constructed. Kuchcha construction is carried out without authority or permission of the Corporation. We have referred to the nature of the construction, use etc. Hence, the petitioners say could not be accepted in this regard. 38. 2 about the markets namely, Sardar market, Salia market, Danapith Vegetable market, the petitioners have come out with a version that these markets are closed to the land in question. Reading of the map and evidence in the form of affidavit also makes it clear that there is no market nearto the land in question. 38. 3 the petitioners have averred that the decision is taken by the Corporation to shift Sardar market is not supported by any resolution. Sardar market is the property of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee over which, Municipal Corporation has no right. The petitioners have averred that, that other land is reserved for vegetable market in the plan drawn by SUDA. No such plan is produced by the petitioners but record reveals that the lands sought to be acquired are reserved for vegetable market in the plan. The petitioners have averred that, that other land is reserved for vegetable market in the plan drawn by SUDA. No such plan is produced by the petitioners but record reveals that the lands sought to be acquired are reserved for vegetable market in the plan. From what is stated above, it is clear that when a petition is not affirmed as required, then allegations against the authority exercising powers and duties under the provisions of law cannot be and should not be considered. Burden is very heavy when one challenges the legality and validity of the notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act. The petitioners have failed in discharging that burden. ( 39 ) MR. Desai, learned Counsel submitted that in the instant case, it is clear from the record that the Corporation made a proposal for acquisition of land for providing a market for the benefit of public at large for a public purpose. Notification under Section 4 of the Acquisition Act and, thereafter, after completion of inquiry, notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued. Proceedings are not yet withdrawn. He contended that without previous approval of the acquiring body, it is not open to get the proceedings withdrawn by any indirect mode. As the proceedings have been stayed by the Court unfortunately the land could not be acquired for a pretty long period and till today, people of Surat city particularly residing nearby area where the market is to be constructed are deprived of public facility. We are, therefore, of the view that when notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act has been published, this Court cannot go behind it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition must be dismissed. Even the contention that the Corporation cannot provide vegetable market for need of the public at large cannot be accepted. In our opinion, it is the bounden duty of the local authority to provide such market. The petitioners, by stating that just near by the lands in question, there are other markets, have come out with the case that there is no need to have a market. The petitioners are also stating that nearby other area, other lands can be acquired for vegetable market. The petitioners, by stating that just near by the lands in question, there are other markets, have come out with the case that there is no need to have a market. The petitioners are also stating that nearby other area, other lands can be acquired for vegetable market. After considering the objections, not only of the petitioners but others also, acquiring authority has taken a decision which has been ultimately transformed in a notification under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act which is not to be disturbed ordinarily. The petitioners have to prove mala fides or colourable exercise of powers. At a later stage, the petitioners came out with a case that under the Produce Act, the market can be operated under the said Act and the Corporation cannot construct the market for allotment of shops to the retailers. In absence of notification covering the commodities shown in the Schedule of the Produce Act, the provisions of the said Act are not attracted and, hence, on both the counts, the petitioners have no case. For a pretty long period, in view of interim order passed by the Court earlier, the Corporation could not proceed further to provide vegetable market for all the years. ( 40 ) IN the result, the petition stands dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 10,000. 00. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- sd/- (B. C. Patel, J.) (Sharad D. Dave, J.) upon pronouncement of this judgment, Learned Counsel Mr. Sanjanwala requested the Court to suspend the implementation and operation of this judgment for a period of four weeks. In our opinion, the request is not reasonable as the proceedings are yet to be concluded and it is likely to take some time. Therefore, we reject the said request. .