Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
NARENDRAJIT SINGH ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
21/11/1969
BENCH:
MITTER, G.K.
BENCH:
MITTER, G.K.
SIKRI, S.M.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 306 1970 SCR (3) 278
1970 SCC (1) 125
ACT:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4-(1)-Notification under-
Validity of Notification which does not specify locality
where land is needed.
HEADNOTE:
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification
purporting be one under s. 4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, to the effect that "the land mentioned in the Schedule
is needed for a public purpose The notification did not
specify the locality where the lands were needed It further
stated that s. 5A was not applicable since the provisions of
17(l) was applicable to the land. This was followed by a
notification under s. 6(l). The appellants challenged the
proceedings in High Court on the ground, among others, that
the notification under s. 4 was invalid for non-compliance
with the mandatory provisions of the As rendering the whole
proceedings void. The High Court dismissed the petitions.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : The issue of a notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 4
is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further
powers under the Act an a notification which does not comply
with the essential requirement of that provision of law must
be held to be bad. Section 4(l) does not require that the
identity of the land which may ultimately be acquired should
be specified; but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to
specify th locality in which the land is needed. Any
notification which is the first step towards depriving a man
of his property must be strictly construe and courts ought
not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring
authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a
serious nature[281 E-F; 283 B-C]
In the instant cases the notifications suffered from a very
serious defect in that the locality where the lands were
needed was not specified The notification merely indicated
that the lands mentioned in th schedule were needed. The
defect in a notification under s. 4(l) cannot be cured by
giving full particulars in the notification under s. 6(l).
is apparent that even before the issue of the first
notification Governer had made up its mind to acquire the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
lands of the petitioners in as much as there was no enquiry
in between the two notifications and no valid reason has
been put forward why the details specified in the
notification under s. 6(l) could not have been given in the
one under s. 4(l). [282 C 283 F-H]
Babu Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay & Ors. [1961] 1
S.C.R. 12 and Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab [19631 2
S.C.R. 774, referred to
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeals Nos. 119 and
1193 of 1967.
Appeals from the judgement and decree dated October 8, 196
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 329 and
32. of 1963.
279
S. V. Gupta, J. P. Goyal and G. N. Untoo, for the
appellants (in both the appeals).
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (in
both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MITTER, J. These two appeals by certificate from a common
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad arise out, of
certain land acquisition proceedings in the District of
Rampur.
The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are as
follows. On October 15, 1960 the Government of Uttar
Pradesh issued a notification purporting to be one under s.
4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the effect that
"the land mentioned in the schedule is needed for a public
purpose." The notification further showed that "the Governor
being of opinion that the provisions of sub-s. (1) of S. 17
of the said Act are applicable to the land, is further
pleased.under sub-s. (4) of the said section to direct that
the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall not apply." The
schedule to the notification reads as follows
"SCHEDULE
District Pargana MauzaApproxi- For what purpose
mate area.required.
For the rehabili-
tation of displaced families
from East Pakistan, under
the Ministry of Rehabilita-
tion, Government of India.
Note:-The plan of the land may be inspected in the office of
the Collector, Rampur."
This was followed by a notification under S. 6(1) of the Act
dated October 28, 1960. This notification shows that the
Governor was pleased to declare under S. 6 of the Act that
he was satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule was
needed for a public purpose and under S. 7 of the Act to
direct the Collector of Rampur to take order for the
acquisition of the land.
The case being one of urgency the Governor was further
pleased under sub-s. (1) of S. 17 of the Act to direct the
Collector of Rampur, though no award under S. I 1 has been
made, on the expiration of the notice mentioned in sub-s.
(1) of s. 9, to take possession of the land, being waste or
arable land mentioned in the schedule for a public purpose.
280
SCHEDULE
District Pargana Mauza Approxi- For whatRe-
mate area purpose marks.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
required.
Rampur Bilaspur Gokal 125 For the rehabli-
Nagri acres tation of East
Pakistan dis-
placed families,
under the Minis-
try of Rehabili-
tation, Govern-
merit of India.
The petitioners-appellants before us filed writ petitions in
the High Court on December 1, 1960. The appellant in Appeal
No. 1192 of 1967 was the sole petitioner in-Writ Petition
No. 3274 of 1960 while his father, Ranjit Singh and ’two
others, brothers of the petitioners were the applicants in
Writ, Petition No. 283 of 1961. The two writ petitions
contained common complaints. The case of the petitioners
was that it was the Maharaja of Dewas with whom the
petitioners had certain litigation who was responsible for
singling them out for the purported acquisition of their
land for the rehabilitation of displaced families of East
Pakistan. The first ground put forward in both the
petitions was that the notice under S. 4 of the Act was
invalid for noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of
the Act rendering the whole proceedings void. The points
urged in support of the applications were turned-down by the
learned single Judge and a Special Appeal therefrom to a
Division Bench met with no better fate. The I-earned Judges
of the Division Bench noted that the exact land which was
required by the State Government was not specified in the
notification and that the petitioners had raised further
objection that the notification under S. 4 was invalid
because it had not been published at convenient places in
the locality. The Division Bench, relied on certain
observations of this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur v. The
State of Bombay and others(’) to the effect that the
notification -under S. 4 was for the purpose of carrying on
a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after
necessary survey and levels, and if necessary, digging or
boring into the sub soil whether the I-and was adapted for
the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired.
According, to the Division Bench there was no substance in
the pleas realised on behalf of the petitioners and their
appeals were therefore dismissed.
(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128.
281
Before us Mr. Gupte wanted to urge several points in’
support of the appeals. His first contention was that the
notification under s. 4 was not in compliance with the Act
and therefore it should be struck down and the proceedings
held to be illegal. Sub-s. ( 1 ) of s. 4 of the Act
provides as follows :
"Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land
in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any
public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be
published in the Official Gazette, and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such notification to
be given at convenient places in the said locality."
Sub-s. (2) of the section shows that it is only after
compliance with the provisions of sub-s. (1) that the
officers authorised by Government can enter upon the land
and carry on the operations mentioned therein. Section 5A
gives persons interested in the land notified under s. 4(l)
a right to object to the acquisition. It is only after
disposal of the objections that the State Government is
empowered when satisfied after considering the report made
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
under s. 5A that any particular land is needed for a public
purpose to make a declaration to that effect and such
declaration has to be published in the Official Gazette
under sub-s. (2). In the, normal course after lands have
been declared to be needed for a public purpose the
appropriate Government may direct the Collector to take
orders for the acquisition of the land. Thereafter the
Collector may proceed under S. 8 to mark out the land
covered by the declaration. Section 9 enjoins upon the
Collector to cause public notice to be given at convenient
places after compliance with the provisions of S. 8 that the
Government intends to take possession of the land and that
claims to compensation for interest in such land may be made
to him. Section I I enjoins upon the Collector to hear
objections by persons interested after issue of notice under
S. 9 to the measurements made under S. 8 and into the value
of the land. It is only after compliance with the
formalities of this section that the Collector has to make
an award as to the true area of the land and the
compensation to be allowed for the land as also the
apportionment of the compensation among all the persons
known or believed to be interested in the land.. The
Collector after making an award may take possession of the
land under the provisions of S. 16.
In cases of urgency however this elaborate procedure may be
cut short. Under sub-s. (1) of S. 17 the Collector under
the directions of the Government may be authorised in cases
of urgency, on the expiration of 15 days from the
publication of the notice mentioned in s. 9 sub-s. (1) to
take possession of any waste
282
or arable land needed for a public Purpose and such land
thereupon vests absolutely in the Government. Under sub-s.
(2) of s. 17 the Collector may immediately after the
publication of the notice mentioned in sub-s. (1) and with
the previous sanction of the appropriate Government enter
upon and take possession of the land if the same be needed
owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable
river or other unforeseen emergency it becomes necessary for
any Railway administration to acquire the immediate
possession of any land or for incidental purposes. Sub-s.
(4) of the section provides :
"In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the
appropriate Government, the provisions of subsection (1) or
sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government
may direct that the provisions of section 5A shall not
apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made
under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the
publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section
(1)."
It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the
Act :that the process of acquisition must’ start with a
notification under s. 4. Even in extremely urgent cases like
those mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 17, the notification
under S. 4 is a sine qua non. In some cases the Government
may not follow up the notification under sub-s. (1) by
further proceedings specially where it finds that the land
was unsuited for the purpose for which it is required. But
the issue of a notification under sub-s. (1) of .S. 4 is a
condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers
under the Act and in opinion a notification which does not
comply with the essential requirement of that provision of
law must be held to be bad.
Section 4(l) does not require that the identity of the lands
which may ultimately be acquired should be specified but it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the locality
in which the land is needed. In the instant cases the
notifications suffer from a very serious defect in that the
locality where the lands were needed was not specified. The
notification merely showed that lands mentioned in the
schedule were needed. The schedule in its turn though it
contained the headings District, Pargapa, Mauza and
approximate area, gave no particulars of the same and all
that was mentioned by way of a note was that the plan of the
land might be inspected in the office of the Collector of
Rampur. As no details were given, the only indication about
the locality of the lands was possibly the District of
Rampur inasmuch as the plan of the land was to be found in
the office of the Collector-of the same district. Certainly
the Act did not intend that all the
283
persons owning land in a district should rush to the
Collector’s office to find out whether his lands were
covered by the notification.
It was urged before us that the notification was in terms of
the section and that the petitioners could not complain
inasmuch as the defect was removed by the notification under
S. 6 which was issued within a fortnight after the s. 4
notification. In our view this contention cannot be
accepted. Any notification which is the first step towards
depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed
and courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of
the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if
it be of a serious nature. In the case of Babu Barkya
Thakur it was pointed out by this Court that
"The proceedings begin with a Government notification under
s. 4 that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be
needed for any public purpose."
It is well known that a person interested in the land which
is affected by any notification under S. 4(l) may
immediately object to it and take proceedings in court
against it. In Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab (2) one
of the m questions before this Court was whether a
notification under s. 4(i) and one under S. 6(l) could be
issued simultaneously. Although the Court took - the view
that where s. 5A was not in the way there was no
irregularity in publishing the notifications on the same
day, yet it observed that :
"notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 is a condition
precedent to the making of a notification under sub-s. (1)
of S. 6."
In our view the defect in a notification under s. 4(l)
cannot be cured by, giving full particulars in the
notification under s. 6(l). In this case it is apparent
that even before the issue of the first notification
Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the
petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the
two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward
to. explain why the details specified in the notification
under s. 6 ( 1 ) could not be given in the one under s. 4 (I
). The fact that, the petitioners did not go to court
immediately after the publication of the first notification
is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured
and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the
petitioners went to court after the issue of the
notification under s. 6(1).
(1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128.
(2) [1963] 2 S.C.R. 774.
284
Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
cases, of urgency a notification under S. 4(l) was not
necessary, I a. suitable provision would have been made in
s. 17 for that purpose. The provisions of that section show
that even in cases of extreme urgency like the maintenance
of railway traffic by reason of any sudden change in the
channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen
emergency,the Legislature only thought it fit to by-pass the
provisions of s. 5A but not those of s. 4 sub-s. (1)
In this view, we did not think it necessary to hear Mr.
Gupte on the other points. The appeals wilt therefore be
allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside There
will be no order as to costs,
Y. P Appeal allowed
285