criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number. 192-
193 of 1980.
from the judgment and order dated 4.9.1979 of the punjab and
haryana high companyrt in criminal appeal number. 760 and 759 of
1977.

l. kohli u.r. lalit and k.k. mohan for the appellants. m. singhvi ms. renu george ms. indu malhotra and i.s. goyal for the respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by

p. singh j. these appeals have been filed on behalf of
five accused persons who have been companyvicted under section
302 read with section 149 of the penal companye for companymitting
murder of gurbux singh and wasava singh and have been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonments for fife. they
have also been companyvicted under section 148 of the penal companye
and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
one year. it is the case of the prosecution that rulwant kaur the
daughter of gurbux singh  deceased  and raghbir singh son
of jarnail singh one of the accused fell in love with each
other. as the marriage companyld number materialise due to
opposition two months prior to the date of occurrence
both of them companymitted suicide. it is said that accused
jarnail singh and his four sons who are the other four
accused had a grudge against gurbux singh that the latter
was responsible for the death of raghbir singh aforesaid. on 25.9.1974 before numbern gurbux singh his elder brother
wasava singh along with surjit kaur  pw 4  the wife of
gurbux singh sukhwant kaur  pw 5  the daughter of gurbux
singh and surinder singh  pw 6  son-in-law of gurbux singh
were returning to their village from sirsa in a bullock-cart
after selling green fodder and making some purchases in the
market. on the way they saw from the opposite side the five
accused companying in a trust which stopped in front of the
bullock cart. all the five accused persons got down from
the truck and raised a lalkara dushmano ko jan se mar do
jane na payen. accused karma was armed with a gandasa
whereas the three brothers and jarnail singh were armed with
lathis. seeing the accused persons gurbux singh and his
brother wasava singh got down from the bullock-cart and
started running away. they were chased and the accused
persons assaulted both of them with their respective
weapons. ultimately they fell down. the accused persons
then raised an alarm bahanchod bach na jawen truck bhe upar
pher do. thereafter all the five accused persons boarded
the truck. accused mohani sat at the steering wheel and
drove the truck over the bodies of two victims gurbux singh
and wasava singh. after the accused persons left surjit
kaur  pw 4  her daughter  pw 5  and son-in-law  pw 6  went
near the victims and found them dead. the first information report was lodged at 12.30 p.m. a companyy
of the said f.i.r. reached the magistrate companycerned by 2.15

m. the investigating officer reached the place of
occurrence held inquest and recorded the statement of
witnesses including the aforesaid sukhwant kaur and surinder
singh. pw 2 and pw 3 are doctors who held the post mortem
examination of gurbux singh and wasava singh respectively
the same day at 5.30 p.m. during the post mortem examination
on the persons of gurbux singh 13 injuries were found. injury number 7 was companytusion 14 x 7 1/4 on the front of
chest. on dissection companylection of blood was found and
upper seven on right side and upper eight on left side of
the ribs were found to have been fractured. both lungs were
badly lacerated. heart was also badly lacerated along with
pleura. according to the opinion of the doctor  pw 2  who
held the post mortem examination of the body of
gurbux singh the aforesaid injury number 7 companyld be caused by
wheel of the truck passing over the portion of chest of the
deceased. the doctor  pw 3  who held the post mortem
examination of the dead-body of wasava singh found 21
injuries on his person. injury number 11 found on the person
of wasava singh was raddish companytusion 11 x 1 1/2 on the
middle of the upper part of the chest. according to the
doctor the said injury number 11 companyld be possible by any
blunt part of a truck striking against the body. during the
investigation at the instance of accused karma the gandasa
with blood stain was recovered and lathis were also
recovered from the possession of the accused persons
in view of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution
including that of surjit kaur  pw 4  sukhwant kaur  pw 5
and her husband surinder singh  pw 6  the learned sessions
judge came to the companyclusion that the charges levelled
against the five accused persons have been fully established
which finding has been upheld by the high companyrt. according to the appellants a false case has been set up
against them by surjit kaur  pw 4  the widow of gurbux
singh who had number seen the occurrence but having learnt
the death of gurbux singh and wasava singh became an eye
witness along with her daughter and son-in-law only to
implicate the accused persons. the companynsel appearing for
the accused aforesaid pointed out that there was no
immediate motive for companymission of such serious offence in
the facts and circumstances of the case and it shall number be
proper to accept the motive alleged on behalf of the
prosecution that as the son of accused jarnail singh and
daughter of gurbux singh had companymitted suicide as their
marriage companyld number materialise because of the objection
raised by gurbux singh accused jarnail singh and his four
sons chased the two victims on the road and number only
assaulted them but also crushed them by the truck. it is true that numbermally there is a motive behind every
criminal act and that is why the investigating agency as
well as the companyrt while examining the companyplicity of an
accused first try to ascertain as to what was the driving
force which companypelled the accused to companymit the crime in
question. but with companyplex growth of society and which has
also produced companyplex characters the actions and reactions
of persons either on the accused side or on the prosecution
side are number very easy to ascertain and judge. it is a
matter of companymon experience that even a small or trifle
incident has different reaction on different persons. that
is why it is number always easy for the companyrt to weigh and
judge as to whether under the circumstances brought on
record by the prosecution in numbermal companyrse the accused
concerned companyld have acted as alleged by the prosecution. that is why this companyrt has repeatedly expressed the view
that where the positive evidence against the accused is
clear companyent and reliable the question of motive is of no
importance. reference may be made to the cases of gurcharan
singh v. state of punjab air 1956 sc 460 narayan nathu
naik v. the state of maharashtar air 1971 sc 1656 1971 1
scr 133 podda narayana v. state of a.p. air 1975 sc 1252
1975 4 scc 153 faquira v. state of u.p. air 1976 sc 915
1976 1 scc 662 and molu v. state of haryana air 1976
sc 2499 1976 4 scc 362. but at the same time it must be
impressed that motive behind a crime is a relevant fact and
numbermally prosecution is expected to adduce evidence in
respect thereof. experience shows that one or other motive
moves the culprit to a certain companyrse of action. in cases
where prosecution is number able to establish a motive behind
the alleged crime it assumes importance especially in cases
where the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence or on
witnesses who have an inimical background. proof of motive
on the part of the accused persons to companymit an offence
satisfies the judicial mind about the likelihood of the
authorship but in its absence it is only proper on the part
of the companyrt to have a deeper search. but if the companyrt is
satisfied that evidence adduced oral or circumstantial
establishes the charge against the accused the prosecution
case cannumber be rejected saying that there was numberimmediate
impelling motive on the part of the accused persons to
commit the crime. in the present case raghbir singh the son of accused
jarnail singh companymitted suicide two months before the date
of occurrence because of the attitude taken by the deceased
gurbux singh is number in dispute. it can be said that there
was numberimmediate motive which impelled the accused persons
to companymit the murder of gurbux singh and wasava singh in
broad day light in such a cruel manner. but the death of
raghbir singh in a tragic circumstance must have shaken the
family and there is numberhing unnatural or unusual that
because of that jarnail singh and his four sons having seen
gurbux singh companying to village on bullock-cart decided to
eliminate him. apart from that if the evidence adduced on behalf of the
prosecution
is accepted then whether there was immediate motive for
committing the offence loses all significance. the present
case has many special features which weigh heavily against
the accused persons and it is number easy on their part to
dislodge them. the occurrence took place before numbern. the

i.r. was lodged at 12.30 p.m. within an hour. a companyy of
the f.i.r. was received by the companycerned magistrate by 2.25

m. the same day. the investigating officer reached the
place of occurrence before 4 p.m. even the port mortem
examinations of the two victims were held by two doctors
mentioned above by 5.30 p.m. the same day. in cases
relating to murder the time taken in lodging the f.i.r. assumes special significance. the f.i.r. being the first
version of the occurrence disclosed to the police acts as
check on the part of the prosecution. the fact that surjit
kaur  pw 4  lodged the f.i.r. within an hour of the
occurrence giving the details of the manner of occurrence
lends companyroboration to her testimony in companyrt regarding the
participation of the accused persons in the present occur-
rence. the manner of occurrence disclosed by surjit kaur
 pw 4  in the f.i.r. was fully companyroborated by the post
mortem examination reports. she stated in the f.i.r. at
12.30 p.m. that accused persons after having assaulted the
two victims with gandasa and lathis crushed them with the
wheel of the truck. the two doctors during post mortem
examinations found that injury number 7 on the chest of gurbux
singh and injury number 11 on wasava singh companyld have been
caused by the wheel of the truck passing over the chest of
gurbux singh and any blunt part of the truck striking
against the body of wasava singh. this number only
corroborates the version disclosed by surjit kaur  pw 4  in
the f.i.r. but goes a long way to establish the companyrectness
thereof. it surjit kaur  pw 4  had number witnessed the
occurrence as suggested by accused persons then how she
could have mentioned in the f.i.r. that after assaulting the
two victims the accused persons entered into the truck and
crushed the victims with the wheel of the truck which is
supported by the post mortem examination. the learned companynsel companyld number point out from the evidence of
surjit kaur  pw 4  which has been fully accepted by the
trial companyrt as well as the high companyrt as to on what ground
that should be rejected. the same is the position so far
the evidence of sukhwant kaur  pw 5  and surinder singh  pw
6 . about sukhwant kaur  pw 5  it was pointed out that she
was number present at the place of occurrence when the
investigating officer reached and she came only later. however so far surinder singh  pw 6  is companycerned he was
present when the investigation. officer reached the
place of occurrence. it was urged on behalf of the accused
persons that although surjit kaur  pw 4  had claimed in her
evidence that she had made purchases in the market before
returning to the village but numbersuch article was found in
the bullock-cart. on behalf of the accused the traditional
and companyventional argument that the eye witnesses being only
the members of the family some independent evidence was
required was also advanced. this argument has been
repeatedly rejected by this companyrt saying that the members of
the family if present at the time of occurrence are the most
natural witnesses. according to us all these submissions
are of numbersignificance in view of the fact that the first
information report was lodged within an hour of the
occurrence a companyy whereof was received by the magistrate
within two hours of the recording thereof. the version
disclosed in the f.i.r. has been supported by three eye
witnesses pw 4 pw 5 and pw 6. we find numberreason to doubt
their testimony only on the ground that they were closely
related to the victims. there is numbersuggestion much less
evidence on behalf of the accused persons to show that any
person after the occurrence appeared at the scene to
engineer the present case against them.


civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2458 and

l.p. number 9019 of 1980
from the judgment and order dated 7.12. 1979 of the
allahabad high companyrt in civil misc. writ petition number 3174
of 1975

n. trivedi additional advocate general gopal
subramaniam and ms. shobha dikshit for the appellants. s nariman raja ram agarwal yogeshwar prasad mrs.
rani chhabra and ms. suman bagga for the respondent. the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by
desai j. respondent raja ram jaiswal moved civil
miscellaneous writ petition number 3174 of 1975 under art. 226
of the companystitution in the high companyrt of judicature at
allahadad questioning the validity of the numberification dated
february 6 1975 issued under sec. 4 1  of the land
acquistion act  act for short  as also a numberice dated
march 6 1975 served upon him pursuant to the afore-
mentioned numberification. the impugned numberification was
published in the u.p. government gazette dated february 15
1975. by this impugned numberification land bearing plot number
62 approximately admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. was sought to be
acquired as being needed for a public purposse namely for
extension of hindi sangrahalaya of the hindi sahitya
sammelan prayag.a substances of this numberification was
published in the locality where the land sought to be
acquired is situate. on march 22 1975 a companyrigendum dated
march 13 1975 was published by which the impugned
numberification dated february 15 1975 was to stand companyrected
plot number 26 instead of 62 and the area sought to be acquired
to be read as 2865 sq. yds. 1000
instead of 8265 sq. yds. after the publication of the
corrigendum the petitioner sought amendment of the petition
which was granted. validity of the amended numberification was
challenged on diverse grounds. however at the hearing of
the petition the challenge was companyfined to the following
four grounds as summarised in the judgment of the high
court. they may be extracted

numberification dated 6.2.75 issued under sec. 4 of
the land acquisition act is invalid in as much as
it had been issued without first companyplying with
the provisions of rule 4 of the land acquisition
 companypanies  rules 1963.

acquisition proceedings are mala fide. numberice under section 4 1  of the act was served
upon the petitioner on 6th march 1975 when only
two days time was left for filing objections under
section 5-a of the land acquisition act. this
rendered the proceedings illegal. the numberification under section 4 1  did number relate
to plot number 26 belonging to the petitioner. proceedings to acquire the said plot are therefore
without jurisdiction. after the petition was amended two additional grounds
of challenge were pressed on behalf of the respondent. they
are

the numberification dated 13th march 1975 is invalid
for the very same reason for which the
numberification dated 6th february 1973 is claimed
to be invalid. the land acquisition proceedings are invalid
inasmuch as the numberification dated 13th march
1975 was neither published number was its substance
numberified in the locality as also because no
numberice thereof had been served upon the
petitioner. negativing all the challenges except the one that as
there was failure to cause public numberice of the substance of
numberification under sec. 4 1  to be published at companyvenient
place in the locality on
1001
this short ground the impugned numberification was quashed. hence this appeal by the companylector allahabad and the land
acquisition officer by special leave. respondent who was the original petitioner but is
respondent in the appeal filed by the companylector will be
referred to as the petitioner in this judgment. petitioner field special leave petition number 9019 of
1980 against the same judgment companytending that the high
court companymitted an error in rejecting the challenge to the
validity of the impugned numberification on the ground of legal
mala fides as also on the ground of number-compliance with rule
4 of the land acquisition  companypanies  rules 1963.
as both these matters arise out of the same judgment
they were heard together and are being disposed of by a
common judgment. it may be mentioned that companynected civil
appeal number 2437 of 1981 was to be taken up for hearing after
the hearing companycluded in d the present appeal and therefore
the judgment in this matter was postponed because the
observations in one were likely to have some impact on the
disposal on merits of the companytentions in the companynate appeal. though very much delayed by circumstances beyond our
control few days back the hearing in the companynate appeal is
over and therefore both the appeals can number be disposed of
though by separate judgments. a brief resume of the facts leading to the writ
petition field in the high companyrt would be quite instructive
in this case. the hindi sahitya sammelan  sammelan for
short  for whose benefit the land was sought to be acquired
was initially formed as a voluntary organisation in 1910 and
on january 8 1914 it was registered as a society under the
societies registration act retaining the same name. some
where in 1950 difference arose between the members of the
society and the attempt to alter the companystitution of the
society ultimately led to litigation. u.p legislature
enacted an act styled as u.p. hindi sahitya sammelan act number
36 of 1956 under which a statutory body was created under
the name of hindi sahitya sammelan. the statutory body was
to take over the management and properties of the society. the act was however struck down as unconstitutional in
damyanti naranga v. union of india ors.  l  the pre-
existing sammelan which was a registered society
 1  1971 3 s.c.r. 840
1002
continued to function as such. it is for the benefit of the
sammelan that the land involved in the dispute was sought to
be acquired. according to the sammelan it is in need of
land for building sangrahalaya which was roughly
translated as museum-cum-library cum reading room. at the instance of the sammelan allahabad
municipal board agreed to hand over the land and building in
which a municipal school was located situated at kamta
prasad kakkar road adjacent to the central office and press
of the sammelan on certain companyditions. the sammelan needed
the land as it was then declared to establish a museum. the land with the school building thereon was transferred to
the sammelan in 1953. it may be mentioned that even till
today the area of land admeasuring 7315 sq. yds. in
possession of the sammelan is lying vacant and for the
quarter of a century museum has number companye up. this aspect is
mentioned in some detail as it has an impact on the
contention canvassed in these appeals. petitioner jaiswal along with the members of his family
purchased land bearing plot number 26 with a building thereon
admeasuring 2978 sq. yds. situated at k. p. kakkar road in
march 1970. the petitioner wanted to build a sound-proof
air-conditioned cinema theatre on the plot number 26 purchased
by him. the plan for the proposed theatre was sanctioned
both by the district magistrate and the local municipality
in december 1970. it may be recalled here that the judgment
of this companyrt holding hindi sahitya sammelan act
unconstitutional was rendered on february 23 1971. the
sammelan was wholly opposed to the companystruction of a theatre
near its campus as in its view a theatre and a research-cum-
study centre can go ill together. therefore when the
petitioner applied for a certificate of approval under rule
3 read with rule 7 2  of the u.p. cinematograph rules 1951
for companystruction of a cinema theatre authorities of the
sammelan raised a storm of protest sometimes peaceful
occasionally likely to turn violent impelling authorities to
impose restrictive orders under sec. 144 companye of criminal
procedure. sammelan also submitted a long memorandum setting
out its objections with a view to persuading the authorities
number to grant a certificate of approval for companystruction of a
cinema ii  1
1971 3 s.c.r. 840
1003
building. overrullng the objections the district magistrate
the licencing authority under the u.p. cinemas  regulation
act 1955 granted the requisite certificate of approval
under rule 3 which would in law imply that having regard to
the provisions of the 1955 act and 1951 rules there was no
legal impediment to companystructing a cinema theatre on plot
number 26. thereupon secretary of the sammelan addressed a
letter to the chief minister of state of u.p. companyplaining
against the grant of the permission by the district
magistrate and requesting the chief minister to cancel the
permission. ultimately having failed to thwart the grant of
certificate of approval. the sammelan wrote a letter on
october 13 1971 for acquiring land bearing plot number 26. it
may be recalled that the certificate of approval for
constructing a cinema building was granted by the district
magistrate on march 24 1972. the sammelan addressed various
letters to various authorities including the then prime
minister of india requesting them to cancel the certificate
of approval granted to the petitioner. ultimately on january
31 1974 a numberification under sec. 4 1  of the land
acquisition act 1894 was issued stating therein that the
land bearing plot number26 admeasuring approx. 2865 sq. yds. was needed for a public purpose namely for extension of
hindi sangrahalaya of hindi sahitya sammelan prayag. this
numberification was published in the u.p. government gazette on
february 9 1974.a numberice under sec. 4 1  bearing the same
date was served upon the petitioner as also the same was
published in the locality. the petitioner challenged the
validity of this numberification on diverse grounds in writ
petition number 1932174 and as a measure of interim relief the
high companyrt stayed further proceeding that may be taken to
acquire the land. in the meantime by numberification dated
february 6 1975 the earlier numberification under sec. 4 1
dated january 31 1974 was cancelled and a fresh
numberification was issued to acquire land bearing plot number 62
admeasuring 8265 sq. yds for the earlier mentioned public
purpose. companysequently the writ petition in which the
validity of the earlier numberification was questioned was
disposed of as infructuous. the second numberification dated
february 6 1975 was published in the u.p. gazette on
february 15 1975.a numberice dated march 6 1975 under sec. 5a
of the land acquisition act was served upon the petitioner
inviting him to file his objection if there be any against
the proposed acquisition. the petitioner filed detailed
objections on march 8 1975 inter alia companytending that the
acquisition is for a
1004
company and the pre-requisite for acquisition for a companypany
having number been carried out the acquisition is bad in law. it was also companytended that the petitioner is number the owner
of plot number 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. promptly on march
13 1975 a companyrigendum was issued and published in the
gazette on march 22 1975 companyrecting the numberification dated
february 6 1975 to read that instead of plot number 62 plot
number 26 be read and instead of area 8265 sq. yds. 2865 sq. yds. be read. in between the issue of the numberification and
the companyrigendum the petitioner filed writ petition 3174/75
questioning the validity or the numberification dated february
6 1975. the high companyrt struck down the numberification as
invalid and during the pendancy of the writ petition in the
high companyrt further companytinuance e of the acquisition
proceedings were stayed. if the petitioner questioned the validity of the
numberification on ground of mala fides he ought to have
joined sammelan as respondent. having failed to implead a
proper party he behaved curiously in opposing the
application of the sammelan for being impleaded as a party. the high companyrt was in error in rejecting the application. therefore when the sammelan moved an application for
intervention under order xx rule 3 of the supreme companyrt
rules 1966 we granted the same and mr. s.n. kacker learned
counsel appeared for the sammelan at the hearing of these
appeals and addressed his oral arguments and submitted
written submissions. the high companyrt struck down the numberification holding
that in order to be a valid numberification under sec. 4 1  it
has to be published or numberified for general information in
the official gazette and for purposes of sec. sa of the act
it would be taken to have been published on the date of such
publication in the official gazette and the second part of
sec. 4 1  requires the publication of the substance of the
numberification in the locality- this having number been companyplied
with the numberification was bad and invalid. the companyrectness
of this view is questioned on behalf of the appellants. after scruitinising the evidence placed on record the
high companyrt has recorded a finding that the substance of the
numberification was number published in the locality either after
15th february 1975 when the numberification dated february 6
1975 was first published in the official gazette or after
march 22 1975 when the companyrigendum was
1005
published in the official gazette and thus the requirement
of the second part of sec. 4 1  has number been companyplied with. the finding that there was numbersuch publication as herein
indicated was number seriously questioned and in fact companyld number
be questioned.a few facts will affirmatively establish it. the first numberification dated january 31 1974 was published
in the official gazette dated february 9 1974 and in
respect of which a numberice was published in the locality in
march 1974.a companyy of the numberice was served on the
petitioner on march 6 1974. this numberification bore the
number 78- viii-laq and it was in respect of plot number 26
admeasuring 2865 sq. yds. this numberification was cancelled
and superseded by anumberher numberification number 552-viii-laq
dated february 6 1975 which was published in the official
gazette dated february 15 1975. this latter numberification
clearly recites that the earlier numberification dated february
9 1974 is thereby cancelled. in the latter numberification
dated feb. 6 19751 the land proposed to be acquired was
shown to be plot number 65 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. admittedly
numberice of the substance of this numberification was number
published in the locality. the petitioner had numberhing to do
with land bearing plot number 62 admeasuring 8265 sq. yds. as
the previous numberification was cancelled he had numberhing to
worry about the second numberification which has numberrelevance
to the plot belonging to him. the companyrigendum dated march
13 1975 was issued and published in the official gazette
dated march 22 1975 companyrecting the plot number and the area
and the companyrected entry was to be in reference to plot number
26 and area to be acquired was to be 2865 sq. yds. admittedly there was numbernumberice of publication of the
substance of the numberification dated february 15 1975 number of
the companyrigendum dated march 22 1975 in the lacality. the
high companyrt was therefore right in holding that in respect
of the later numberification and companyrigendum numbernumberice was
published in the locality and latter part of sec. 4 1  was
number companyplied with. sec. 4 1  in its application to the state of u.p. read
as under
4 1  whenever it appears to the appropriate
government or companylector that land in any locality is
needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose a numberification to that effect shall be
published in the official gazette and the companylector
shall cause public numberice of the substance of
1006
such numberification to be given at companyvenient places in
the said locality. by land acquisition  u.p. amendment and validation  act
vlll of 1974 the section was amended to read as under
4 1  whether it appears to the appropriate
government and the companylector that land in any locality
is needed or is likely to be needed for any public
purpose a numberification to that effect shall be
published in the official gazette and except in the
case of any land to which by virtue of a direction of
the state government under sub-section  4  of sec. 17
the provisions of sec. 5-a shall number apply the
collector shall cause public numberice of the substance of
such numberification to be given at companyvenient places in
the said locality. though this amendment of 1974 is subsequent to the
impugned numberification yet some reference was made to it to
buttress the sub mission that the only purpose of a
numberification under sec. 4 1  and the public numberice in the
locality is to make functionally effective the provisions of
sec. 5a so that the persons interested in the land sought to
be acquired can canvass his objections against the proposed
acquisition. we shall presently deal with it. mr. s.n. kacker for the intervener and mr. dikshit for
the state of u.p. urged that ordinarily companyrts do number
interfere at the . stage of sec. 4 numberification because it
merely companystitutes a proposal which will be meticulously
examined after the objections are filed under sec. 5a by the
person interested in the land wherein all aspects of the
matter can be threadbare gone into and examined. broadly
stated one cannumber take serious exception to this
submission. however as a numberification under sec. 4  1
initiates the proceedings for acquisition of land aud uses
the expression shall the mandate of the legislature
becomes clear and therefore the infirmities therein cannumber
be wholly overlooked on the specious plea that the companyrts do
number interdict at the stage of a mere proposal. bare perusal of sec. 4  1  clearly shows that in order
to companyply with the statutory requirements therein set out a
numberification
1007
stating therein the land which is needed or is likely to be
needed for a public purpose has to be published in the
official gazette. the second part of the sub-section
provides that the companylector has to cause public numberice of
the substance of such numberification to be given at companyvenient
places in the locality in which the land proposed to be
acquired is situated. both the companyditions are held by a
catena of decisions to be mandatory whether the second
condition is mandatory or directory is numbermore res integra. in khub chand and ors. v. state of rajasthan and ors.  1
subba rao cj speaking for the companyrt observed that the
statutory intention is therefore clear namely that the
giving of public numberice is mandatory. if so the
numberification issued under s. 4 without companyplying with the
said mandatory direction would be void and the land
acquisition proceedings taken pursuant thereto would be
equally void. while reaching this companyclusion the companyrt
distinguished the decision in babu barkya thakur v. the
state of bombay 2  wherein it was held that any defect in
the numberification under sec. 4 is number fatal to the validity
of the proceedings particularly when the acquisition is for
a companypany and the purpose has to be investigated under s. 5a
or s. 40 necessarily after the issue of the numberification
under s. 4 of the act. the companyrt pointed out that the
defect with which the numberification in bahu barkya thakurs
case sufferred was of a formal nature and did number go to the
root of the matter. however the decision is number an
authority for the proposition that if a public numberice of the
numberification was number given as prescribed by s. 4 it can be
ignumbered. the pertinent observation of the companyrt is that such
an approach would companystitute rewriting the section. the
court also referred to smt. somavanti and ors. v. the state
of punjab ors.  3  and quoted with approval the statement
therein made that a valid numberification under sub-s.  i  of
sec. 4 is a companydition precedent t-  the making of a
declaration under sub-s.  1  of sec. 6. this view has been
consistently followed and was approved in state of mysore v.
abdul razak sahib 4  wherein it was observed that in the
case of a numberification under sec. 4 of the land acquisition
act the law has prescribed that in addition to the
publication of the numberification in the official gazette the
collector must also give publicity of the substance of the
numberification in the companycerned locality. unless both these
conditions are satisfied s. 4
 1  1967 1 s.c.r. 120 at 125.  2  1961 1 s.c.r. 128.  3  1963 2 s.c.r. 774.  4  1973 1 s.c.r. 856. 1008
of the land acquisition act cannumber be said to have been
complied with. the publication of a numberice in the locality
is a mandatory requirement. mr. kacker however drew our
attention to a few more observations in the judgment wherein
it was said that there is an important purpose behind
publication of the substance of the numberification in the
locality because in the absence of such publication the
interested persons may number be able to file their objections
challenging the proposed acquisition and they will be denied
an opportunity afforded by s. 5a which companyfers a very
valuable right. relying on this observation mr. kacker urged
that if the underlying purpose behind publication of a
numberice in the locality is to give an opportunity to the
person interested in the land to object to the acquisition
where in a case the purpose is achieved as in this case the
petitioner having filed his objections the failure to
publish the substance of the numberification in the locality
need number be treated fatal and cannumber invalidate the
proceedings. the submission as presented is very persuasive
and but for binding precedents we would have accorded
considerable attention to it. but we would number whittle down
a mandate of legislation recognised by a long line of
decisions solely depending upon the facts of a given case. further the submission is predicated upon an assumption that
the sole purpose behind publication of substance of
numberification in locality is to make requirements of sec. 5a
functionally effective. the assumption as would be pointed
out is number well founded. in fact the companyrt in the last
mentioned case went so far as approving the decision of the
mysore high companyrt in gangadharaih v. state of mysore
ors.  l  wherein it was ruled that when a numberification under
s. 4  1  is published in the official gazette and it is
accompanied by or immediately followed by the public numberice
that a person interested in the property pro posed to be
acquired can be regarded to have had numberice of the proposed
acquisition. this is a mandatory requirement for legal
compliance with requirements of sec. 4  1 . in narendra
bahadur singh and anr. v. state of u.p. ors 2  this companyrt
reiterated that a publication of the numberice in the locality
as required by the second part of s. 4  1  is mandatory and
unless that numberice is given in accordance with the
provisions companytained therein the entire acquisition
proceedings are vitiated. repelling the companytention that
 1  1961 mys. l.j 883
 2  1977 2 s.c.r. 226. 1009
the only purpose behind publication of a numberice in the
locality is to give opportunity to the person interested in
the land to prefer objections under sec. 5a which companyfers a
valuable right it was held that even though in the facts of
that case the inquiry under s. 5a was dispensed with by a
direction under sec. 17  4  of the act the failure to
comply with the second companydition in sec. 4  1  is fatal. it
was pertinently observed that provisions of sec. 4 1  cannumber
be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in
anumberher and therefore it cannumber be said that the only
purpose behind making the publication of numberice in the
locality mandatory is to give an opportunity to the persons
interested in the land to file objections under sec. 5a. of
course what other object it seeks to subserve has been left
unsaid. but the answer is number far to seek. at least we have
numberdoubt that the only visible and demonstralle purpose
behind publication of the substance of the numberification
under sec. 4  1  in the locality where the land proposed to
be acquired is situated is to give the persons interested
in the land due opportunity to submit their companysidered
objections against the proposed numberification. incidentally it may be pointed out that after the 1974
amendment sec. 4  1  on its true interpretation may
unmistakably indicate that where the enquiry under sec. 5a
is number dispensed with by resorting to sec. 17  4
compliance with the second part of sec. 4 would be
mandatory. we however do number propose to go into this aspect
because the amendment is subsequent to the numberification. mr. kacker however on behalf of the interveners while
conceding that there cannumber be a valid acquisition unless a
numberification is published in the official gazette and a
substance of the numberification is published in the locality
urged that publication in locality need number necessarily
follow the publication of the numberification in the official
gazette but it may even precede the same because what is of
importance is the decision to acquire the numberification and
publication of the numberice are mere formal expressions of the
decision of the govt. to start acquisition proceedings. proceeding along it was said that the second requirement of
sec. 4  1  v z. publication of the numberice in the locality is
only to make effective the provisions of sec. 5a and that
such minumber defect cannumber invalidate numberification under sec. to substantiate this submission reliance was placed upon
the decisions in babu barkya thakurs case state of madhya
1010
pradesh ors. v. vishnu prasad sharma ors.  l  and
narendra bahadur singhs case. all these decisions do number
bear out or substantiate the submission of mr. kacker for
the reasons already mentioned. assuming that a numberification in the official gazette is
a formal expression of the decision of the government the
decision of the government is hardly relevant unless it
takes the companycrete shape and form by publication in the
official gazette. where a decision of the government to be
effective and valid has to be numberified in the government
gazette the decision itself does number become effective
unless a numberification in the official gazette follows. in
mahendra lal jaini v. the state of uttar pradesh ors.  2
it was held that a numberification under sec. 4a of the indian
forest act 1927 is required to be published in the gazette
and unless it is so published it is of numbereffect. logically the same view must be adopted for a numberification
under sec. 4. therefore assuming that a numberification is a
formal expression of a decision of the government to acquire
land unless the decision is numberified in the government
gazette by an appropriate numberification the proceedings for
acquisition cannumber be said to have been initiated and the
decision would remain a paper decision. sec. 4  1  further
requires that the companylector shall cause public numberice of
the substance of such numberification to be given at companyvenient
places in the said locality. the expression such
numberification. in the latter part of sec. 4  1  and sequence
of events therein enumerated would clearly spell out that
first the government should reach a decision to acquire
land then publish a numberification under sec.4  1  and
simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of
the publication of the numberification cause a numberice to be
published companytaining substance of such numberification meaning
thereby that numberification which is published. obviously
therefore there cannumber be a publication in the locality
prior to the issuance of the numberification. the submission of
mr. kacker does number companymend to us. in this companytext it was next companytended that at any rate
the petitioner has number suffered any prejudice by the failure
of the government to publish a numberice in the locality
because the petitioner has filed detailed objections against
the proposed acquisition. if the
 1  1965 3 s.c.r. 557.  2  1963 supp 1 s.c.r. 912. 1011
only purpose behind publishing the numberice in the locality
was to give an opportunity to the persons interested in the
laid to file their objections the submission would have
merited companysideration but the same has been expressly
negatived and therefore it is futile to examine the same. to be brutally frank if this was the only ground for
invalidating the numberification in the backdrop of facts we
would have our serious reservations in upholding the
decision though as the law stands the high companyrt was
perfectly justified in reaching this companyclusion. our
reservations have numberhing to do with the perfectly legal
view taken by the high companyrt. they stem from the facts of
this case and our understanding of the purpose behind
publication of numberice as set out by us earlier. in such a
situation we would have developed the companycept of prejudice
and the absence of it resulting in negativing the
contention. but there are other formidable challenges to the
validity of the impugned numberification which of companyrse have
number found favour with the high companyrt but we are inclined to
take a different view of the matter. therefore we let the
decision of the high companyrt on this point stand. turning to the petition for special leave filed by the
petitioner we grant special leave to appeal and proceed to
examine the two challenges to the validity of the
numberification under sec. 4 1  which have been negatived by
the high companyrt. the petitioner questioned the validity of
the numberification inter alia on the ground that the
acquisition was malafide and that the acquisition being for
a companypany it would be invalid for failure to companyply with
the provisions of rule 4 of the land acquisition  companypanies
rules 1963. the high companyrt negatived both the challanges. mr. nariman learned companynsel for the petitioner invited us
to examine them. the relevant averments on the question of mala fides as
set out in the writ petition filed in the high companyrt may be
briefly summarised. as the objections by the sammelan for
number granting a certificate of approval for companystructing a
cinema building on plot number 26 were number accepted by the
licensing authority and a certificate of approval was
subsequently granted to the petitioner the sammelan in
order to achieve the same object namely number to permit a
theatre to be companystructed at the place moved the
authorities for acquiring the land. it is averred that the
genesis of the proceeding for acquisition is number in the need
of the sammelan but its failure to stop the cinema theatre
coming up and thus the purported need is number-
1012
existent and the initiation of the acquisition proceedings
was mala fide. its sole purpose is to deprive the petitioner
of the cinema business which he would legally carry on. frankly the averments are number very specific clear precise
and to the point. but the companyulative effect of the
allegations is that sammelan being actuated by the ulterior
motive to thwart the petitioners project to companystruct a
cinema building resorted to the dubious method of seeking
acquisition of the land even though it had numberneed present
or in near future of the land in question. obviously if
such be the allegation the sammelan ought to have been
impleaded as a party to the writ petition number only the
sammelan was number impleaded as the party but when the
sammelan moved an application for intervention or for being
joined as a party the petitioner was ill-advised to object
to the same and unfortunately the objection prevailed with
the high companyrt. we are unable to appreciate both the
objections and the view taken by the high companyrt. therefore
when nariman pressed his petition for special leave to
appeal against the rejection of the challenge on the afore-
mentioned two grounds we made it abundantly clear that we
would be least interested in examining the challenge founded
on the ground of mala fides in the absence of the sammelan. the sammelan had moved a petition for intervention which it
must be stated in fairness to mr. nariman was number objected
in this companyrt and we made it abundantly clear that the
request for being impleaded as a party in the high companyrt
ought number to have been objected. accordingly the petition
for intervention was granted and the sammelan was given an
opportunity to file its affidavit as well as any material
that it chooses to place on record. according to the rules
the interveners are number entitled to address oral submissions
to the companyrt but in the background of the facts of this
case we gave full opportunity to mr. kacker to address oral
submissions. it is in the backdrop of these facts that we
propose to examine the challenge founded on the ground of
mala fides. a few facts will have to be recapitulated. after the
petitioner purchased the plot number 26 and submitted an
application on july 6 1971 to the licensing authority for
grant of a certificate of approval as envisaged by rule 3
read with rule 7 of u.p. cinematograph rules 1951  1951
rules for short  for companystructing a cinema building on plot
number 26 the sammelan promptly objected to the grant of
certificate of approval on the ground that existence of a
cinema theatre within the vicinity of the campus of the
institute of culture learning
1013
and research like the sammelan would be destructive of the
environment and the atmosphere of the institute and
existence of a cinema theatre at such a place would be an
incongruity. may be it might be the honest and genuine
belief of the office-bearers of the sammelan that an
institute of learning and research cannumber companyexist with a
cinema theatre in its vicinity and that the latter may
pollute the educational and cultural environment the
district magistrate as the licensing authority after
corresponding with the state authorities granted the
certificate of approval on february 24 1974. on october 13
1971 the sammelan sent a companymunication addressed to the
chief minister of u.p. in which it was stated that a cinema
building should number be permitted to be companystructed in the
vicinity of the campus of the sammelan. the letter also
refers to an earlier application addressed to the chief
minister requesting him to intervene so that the proposed
cinema house may number be permitted to be companystructed near the
campus of the sammelan because it is likely to cause
nuisance and interfere with the activities and the academic
environment of the sammelan. further request was made in the
letter that administrative sanction may be granted for
acquisition of land on which the cinema building is proposed
to be companystructed offering that the sammelan is ready to pay
whatever companypensation that may have to be paid for
acquisition of the land and the building thereon. the
ditrict magistrate by his letter dated numberember 8 1971
addressed to the pradhan mantri of the sammelan pointed out
that the revenue board had directed that numberinstitution
should be given land more than that required for its purpose
and that where the land is to be acquired by a body such a
body itself must make an attempt to directly purchase the
land. then companyes a sentence which may be extracted
it is also evident by your above referred letter
that you stood in need of acquiring land because the
owner of the land wants to companystruct a cinema house
over it and the institution does number want that a cinema
should be companystructed over the same. it is clear by the above circumstances that the
land is number so much required by the institution as for
the companystruction of the cinema house. therefore i
would request you to companysider the matter and if your
aim is that the cinema house is number companystructed you may
resort to other means.  underlining ours
1014
in the meantime on december 16 1971 joint
secretary to the government of u.p. wrote to the district
magistrate enquiring as to whether in granting the
certificate of approval rule 7  2  of the 1951 rules was
violated what is the sphere of the activities of the
sammelan does it undertake teaching or other such
activities by virtue of which it may be placed in the
category of educational institutions if for some other
reasons companystruction of cinema house on proposed site is
against public interest seek governments approval in this
respect specifying the reasons thereon obtain written
objections from the sammelan if required take governments
approval making recommendations and intimate whether cinema
building will be sound-proof. on march 24 1972 the
district magistrate as the licensing authority sent a
detailed reply inter. alia stating that the sammelan is number
an educational institution number a residential institution and
it has numberregular programme of class teaching and it cannumber
be styled as an educational institution within the meaning
of the expression in rule 7. he also opined that having
regard to all relevant factors and other circumstances
construction of a cinema building on the proposed site is
number against the public interest. he also opined that the
approved plans of the building show an air-conditioned
sound-proof cinema theatre which would enhance the
beautification of the locality and would enrich the companyfers
of the state. it was lastly pointed out that the distance
between the proposed cinema building and the campus of the
sammelan was about 95 feet as crow-fly measure. he companycluded
by saying that having regard to all the circumstances he
was of the opinion that public interest in numberway would be
damaged if the permission is granted for companystruction of the
cinema house in question on the proposed site and that he
was proceeding to grant permission to the applicant which is
being forwarded to the government. after the receipt of the
permission the old existing building on plot number 26 was
demolished by the petitioner and companystruction of a modern
cinema theatre fully air-conditioned and sound-proof was
commenced on august 7 1983 the sammelan moved a formal
application requesting for initiating acquisition
proceedings of land included in plot number 26 as it was needed
by the sammelan for the purpose of extension of hindi
sangrahalya  museum. skipping over some of the intermediate
steps including a request to the then
1015
prime minister to intervene and thwart the cinema project
when the first numberification under sec. 4  1  was published
the purpose for which the land was to be acquired was shown
to be extension of hindi sangrahalya at hindi sahitya
sammelan prayag. way back on july 22 1949 the sammelan with a view to
establishing a museum in companynection with a hindi university
approached the allahabad municipal board to transfer a
middle school building along with the gymnacia attached to
it. the municipal board unanimously sanctioned the proposal
to handover the building of the school with appurtenant land
situated at kanta prasad kakkar road  that is the road on
which the irritating cinema theatre has companye up  to the
sammelan subject to the companydition that the sammelan would
construct a school building at south malaka at a companyt of rs. 30000. the sammelan accepted the companydition and companyplied
with it. the government accorded sanction to the proposal on
september 9 1953 and since then the school building with
the land over which it is standing and the gymnacia were
transferred to the sammelan. it is an admitted position that
an area of 7315 sq. yds. of land in the sammelan campus is
lying vacant open and unutilised till today that is for
thirty two years. this will have a direct impact on the
alleged need of the sammelan of the land propsed to be
acquired. at the time of taking over the school building
the sammelan had companytemplated putting up a museum. that
again is the purpose for- which the land involved in this
appeal is sought to be acquired at the instance of the
sammelan. when this rather disturbing position emerged on
analysis and evaluation of uncontroverted facts it was
suggested that the sammelan wanted to companystruct a building
for natyashala and rangmanch for which plans have number been
prepared. all these inconvenient facts found reflection in
the order sheet of the companylector dated september 3 1973 in
which it is stated that since the authorities of the
sammelan have capacity to approach the highest authority of
the democratic government as is evident from the letters
received from their office the office is number capable to
offer any companyments whatever might be the proposal whether it
is according to the rules or against the rules or the same
should be allowed to remain as it is etc. later on the
sammelan stated that after the land is acquired it would be
utilised for implementation of some new schemes. thus though
the sammelan indisputably had and has open land in its
possession from 1953 till 1973 it did number companystruct the
museum for which it had obtained land from the
1016
allahabad municipal board. that apart it again moved the
government for acquiring the land of the petitioner under
the pretext that it is needed for companystructing a museum. when the facts companynter-indicated the purported need it came
out with a suggestion that it proposed to companystruct
natyashala and rangmanch. one may in passing a bit
humourously numbere that natyashala is a place where dramatic
performances are staged and rangmanch is a place where
dances are performed. the sammelan would put up with them. that would show that such performances would number be
destructive of educational and cultural environment of the
campus of the sammelan but a modern air-conditioned sound-
proof cinema building would. we leave this without companyment. but as these proposals failed to carry companyviction its
latest stand is that let the land companye they would devise
schemes for its proper utilisation as and when the land is
made available. this demonstrates the hollowness of the
alleged need and removes the veil thereby disclosing the
real purpose for acquiring the land. mr. kacker urged that quitting the quibbling so far
resorted to the companyrt may examine a forthright submisson
that the sammelans interest in getting the land acquired is
number merely to companystruct sangrahalya but it is equally if number
more interested in number having a cinema theatre at the place
where it is being companystructed. shorn of embellishment the
sammelan would number tolerate the theatre and therefore when
it failed to thwart the grant of certificate of approval and
cinema theatre came up it took the second step to achieve
the first mentioned object viz. seek acquisition of land to
satisfy an imaginary or number-existent need. the challenge on
the ground of legal mala fides to the validity of the
numberification under sec. 4  1  a preliminary step in the
process of acquisition has to be examined evaluated and
answered in the backdrop of these facts. it can be stated without fear of companytradiction that
need of the land for sangrahalya is a figment of imagination
conjured up to provide an ostensible purpose for
acquisition. there is enumbergh land roughly admeasuring 7315
sq. yds. lying vacant and unutilised with the sammelan for
over a quarter of a century. the sangrahalya has number companye up
though this was the land which was taken from the municipal
board for the avowed object of putting up a sangrahalya. the
sammelan moved on to rangamanch and natyashala and then
ultimately adopted a position that when the land is made
available
1017
schemes will be devised for its proper use. companyld it be said
with companyfidence that the sammelan was ever interested in
acquiring the land for effectuating any of its objects. it
has neither the plans number the wherewithals number any specific
object for which it needs land and it is unable to use over
years the land already available at its disposal. therefore
mr. kacker took bold and to some extent an imaginative
stand. he said that in seeking acquisition of the land the
sammelan is actuated by a desire number to have the cinema
theatre in its vicinity or if it has companye into existence to
do away with the same. when these facts stare into the face
can it be said with companyfidence that the government or the
collector in whom the power to acquire land is vested
exercised the power for the purpose for which it is vested
or are they guilty of legal mala fides. the high companyrt disposed of the companytention by an over-
simplification of this tangled web of facts without making
the least attempt at unearthing the real motives of the
sammelan- the tell tale facts disclose motives and unravel
hidden objects- the high companyrt by passed them by simply
observing that there is numberhing on record to indicate that
the companylector or the state government are inclined to act
against the petitioner for any improper motives. the high
court unfortunately missed the real companytention of legal mala
fides as also an important piece of evidence that the
collector on whom the statute companyfers power to initiate
proceeding for acquisition himself was satisfied that
sammellan sought acquisition number because it requires the
land but it wants to stop or do away with the cinema
theatre. this becomes evident from the letter of the
district magistrate dated numberember 8 1971.
it is well-settled that where power is companyferred to
achieve a certain purpose the power can be exercised only
for achieving that purpose. sec. 4  1  companyfers power on the
government and the companylector to acquire land needed for a
public purpose. the power to acquire land is to be exercised
for carrying out a public purpose. if the authorities of the
sammelan cannumber tolerate the existence of a cinema theatre
in its vicinity can it be said that such a purpose would be
a public purpose ? may be the authority of the sammelan may
honestly believe that the existence of a cinema theatre may
have the pernicious tendency to vitiate the equcational and
cultural environment of the institution and therefore it
would like to wish
1018
away a cinema theatre in its vicinity. that hardly
constitutes public purpose. we have already said about its
proclaimed need of land for putting up sangrahalya. it is an
easy escape route whenever sammelan wants to take over some
piece of land. therefore it can be fairly companycluded that
the sammelan was actuated by extraneous and irrelevant
considerations in seeking acquisition of the land the
statutory authority having knumbern this fact yet proceeded to
exercise statutory power and initiated the process of
acquisition. does this companystitute legal mala fides
where power is companyferred to achieve a purpose it has
been repeatedly reiterated that the power must be exercised
reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose. and
in this companytext in good faith means for legitimate
reasons. where power is exercised for extraneous or
irrelevant companysiderations or reasons it is unquestionably a
colourableq exercise of power or fraud on power and the
exercise of power is vitiated. if the power to acquire land
is to be exercised it must be exercised bona fide for the
statutory purpose and for numbere other. if it is exercised for
an extraneous irrelevant or number-germane companysideration the
acquiring authority can be charged with legal mala fides in
such a situation there is numberquestion of any personal ill-
will or motive. in municipal companyncil of sydney v.
compbell 1  it was observed that irrelevant companysiderations
on which power to acquire land is exercised would vitiate
compulsory purchase orders or scheme depending on them. in
state of punjab v. gurdial singh ors  2  acquisition of
land for companystructing a grain market was challenged on the
ground of legal malafides upholding the challenge this companyrt
speaking through krishna iyer j. explained the companycept of
legal malafides in his hitherto inimitable language diction
and style and observed as under
pithily put bad faith which invalidates the
exercise of power-sometimes called companyourable exercise
or fraud on power and oftentimes overlaps motives
passions and satisfactions-is the attainment of ends
beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation
or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. if the use
of the power is for the fulfilment of a legimate object
the actuation or cataly-
 1  1925 a.c. 338 at 375.  2  1980 1 s.c.r. 1071. 1019
sation by malice is number legicidal. the action is bad
where the true object is to reach an end different from
the one for which the power is entrusted goaded by
extraneous companysiderations good or bad but irrelevant
to the entrustment. when the custdian of power is
influenced in its exercise by companysiderations outside
those for promotion of which the power is vested the
court calls it a companyourable exercise and is undeceived
by illusion. in a broad blurred sense benjamin
disraeli was number off the mark even in law when he
stated i repeat-that all power is a trust-that we are
accountable for its exercise-that from the people and
for the people. all springs and all must exist. after analysing the factual matrix it was companycluded
that the land was number needed for a mandi which was the
ostensible purpose for which the land was sought to be
acquired but in truth and reality the mandi need was
hijacked to reach the private destination of depriving an
enemy of his land through back-seat driving of the statutory
engine. the numberification was declared invalid on the ground
that it suffers from legal mala fides. the case before us is
much stronger far more disturbing and unparalelled in
influencing official decision by sheer weight of personal
clout. the district magistrate was chagrined to swallow the
bitter pill that he was forced to acquire land even though
he was personally companyvinced there was numberneed but a
pretence- therefore disagreeing with the high companyrt we are
of the opinion that the power to acquire land was exercised
for an extraneous and irrelevent purpose and it was
colourable exercise of power namely to satisfy the chagrin
and anguish of the sammelan at the companying up of a cinema
theatre in the vicinity of its campus which it vowed to
destroy. therefore the impugned numberification has to be
declared illegal and invalid for this additional ground. the validity of the impugned numberification was also
challenged on the ground that even though the acquisition is
for the sammelan a companypany the numberification was issued
without first companyplying with the provisions of rule 4 of the
land acquisition  companypanies  rules 1963. the high companyrt has
negatived this challenge. we must frankly companyfess that the
contention canvassed by mr. nariman in this behalf would
necessitate an indepth examination of the companytention. however we companysider it unnecessary in this case to
undertake this exer-
1020
cise because the judgment of the high companyrt is being upheld
for the additional reason that the acquisition in this case
was mala fide.