- (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Bulsar at Navsari dismission regular civil appeal No. 92 of 1966 with costs.
(2.)The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are as under:- The present appellants are the agriculturists and possess agricultural lands in village Dived, taluka Bulsar, totalling about 71 acres as described in detains in annexure A attached to the plaint. They have got their farm houses and labour tenements in the said lands. The lands are situated at the foot of Parnera Hill and at some distance from the north bank of river Par. These lands were acquired by Government for Atul Products Limited which is a public limited company situated in village Dived. This company was formed in 1949 with the sole objective of manufacturing dyes chemicals and pharmaceuticals known as Aureomycin. Sulfadazine and Sulfathiasole etc, and though the company applied for compulsory acquisition of more than 900 acres of agricultural land in 1949 acquisition of the suit lands was relinquished by the said company certain reasons mentioned in the plaint and as the suit lands were not then found suitable and useful for the plant of the company. The appellants contended that more than half of the area of the land out of 850 acres acquired in 1949 is lying idle and that the company was giving on lease lands acquired for it to three companies - (1) The Atic Industries Ltd.. (2) Leaderlie Laboratories (India) Ltd, and (3) Cibatul Ltd, that by a notification dated 23/6/1960, the Government of Gujarat notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the suit lands were likely to be needed for the Atul products Ltd, for the purpose of Caustic Soda Plant; that the lands so specified belonged to the plaintiffs and were in their possession. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed that it be declared that the purpose for which the aforesaid notifications were issued had never existed or does not exist and that the lands sought to be acquired thereby are not at all needed for the company for its Caustic Soda Plant; that it be declared that the said notifications were issued mala fide under the pressure of the company and that pay are illegal, inoperative, null and void; that Government be restrained by a permanent injunction from taking possession of the lands from the plaintiffs.
(3.)The State of Gujarat filed its written statement at Ex. 16 and contended that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable; the all the contentions raised in the present suit had already been decided between the parties in special civil application Nos. 857, 858, 859, 901 to 920 and 978 of 1962 by the High Court; that the decision of the Writ petitions operates as res judicata to the trial of the present suit. They did not admit various averments made in the plaint. They contended that reasonableness of the requirement of the suit lands by the company has been decided by the Government after following necessary procedure and the same has been upheld by the decision in the writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs in the High Court. They submitted that the contentions raised in this connection in para 11 of the plaint were not true; that the decision of the defendant in the connection as notified under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act after necessary formalities, was not open to question as the same is conclusive ; that all contentions were considered and decided in the writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs. They therefore submitted that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the reliefs claimed and prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed issues at Ex. 25, as under:
"1. Whether the suit is maintainable in present form? 2. Whether the suit is bad on account of multifariousness? 3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by res judicata? 4. Whether the notice is legal? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the purpose of acquisition and if so, whether the plaintiffs prove that the purpose for which notifications were issued never existed and does not exist and lands sought to be acquired thereby are not at all needed for the company? 6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the notifications were issued mala fide under the pressure of company and the same are illegal, ineffective and void? 7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled in injunction as prayed? 8. What order and decree ?"
The learned Judge decided issues Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in the affirmative and issues Nos 2, 5, 6 and 7 in the negative and on the findings of these issues, the learned Judge dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred in the district court, Bulsar at Navsari which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Bulsar at Navsari original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal to this court. The appellants subsequently have filed civil application No. 2428 of 1971 for amendment of the plaint.