Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHD. SHAFI AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/02/1992
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
BENCH:
ANAND, A.S. (J)
KANIA, M.H. (CJ)
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
CITATION:
1992 SCR (1) 657 1992 SCC (2) 168
JT 1992 (3) 523 1992 SCALE (1)322
ACT:
Land Acquistion Act, 1894:
Sections 4(1), 6(1) and 17(1)-Acquistion of Land-
Notification not disclosing with sufficient clarity details
of land and public purpose for which land was sought to be
acquired-Validity of.
HEADNOTE:
On a request from the Executive Engineer of the
petitioner Housing Board, the State Government issued a
notification under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Land
Acqui-sition Act and a declaration under Section 6 of the
Act for the acquisition of 2.298 hectares of land in the
village mentioned in the Schedule to the Notification under
Section 4(1), for the purpose of construction of buildings
and shops under self financing scheme.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court challenging the validity of the notification as also
the declaration, on various grounds, including that the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was vague and
invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements
of the Act and that recourse to the urgency provisions under
Section 17(1) of the Act could not be had since the land was
not "waste or arable", which was sine qua non for exercising
powers under Section 17(1) of the Act.
Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court quashed the
acquisition proceedings. Hence the appellant, the Madhya
Pradesh Housing Board filed Special Leave Petition before
this Court. On behalf of the appellant Board, it was
contended that since the acquisition of land had been made
at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent of
land, absence of providing detailed particulars of the land
or the locality where it was situate, could not vitiate the
notification, more so, when sufficient particulars had been
provided in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the
Act wherein it had also been indicated that the site plan of
the land was available in the office of the Collector; that
the "public purpose"
658
mentioned in the schedule to the notification issued under
Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as also in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
notificaiton issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, was
sufficiently clear and the finding of the High Court that
the notifications were vague on that account was incorrect
and that absence of a finalised housing scheme could not
vitiate the acquisition proceedings and that the High Court
was in error in holing that recourse could not be had to the
urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the
notification in question was vitated on account of being
vague and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[667C]
2.1. The process of acquisition has to start with a
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is
mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of
notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the
exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any
notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his
property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the
part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the
proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. [662H;
663A-B]
2.2. The object of issuing a notification under Section
4 of the Act is two-fold. First, it is a public
announcement by the Government and a public notice by the
Collector to the effect that the land, as specified therein,
is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for
the "public purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it
authorises the departmental officers or officers of the
local authority, as the case may be to do all such acts as
are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification
has to be published in the locality and particularly persons
likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on
notice that such an activity is afoot. The notification is,
thus, required to give with sufficient clarity not only the
"public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings are
being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is
situate with as full a description as possible of the land
proposed to be acquired to enable the "interested" persons
to know as to which land is being acquired and for what
purpose and to take further steps under the Act by filing
objections etc., since it is open to such persons to canvass
the non-
659
suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose"
also. If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is
defective and does not comply with the requirements of the
Act, it not only vitiates the notification, but also renders
all subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition
bad.
[663B-E]
Narendrajit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
[1970] 3 SCR 278 and Munshi Singh & Others etc. etc. v.
Union of India etc. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 973, referred to.
2.3. In the instant case, the description of the land
in the notification issued under Section 4(1) and 17(1), is
very cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given,
even the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere
mention of the name of the village, which is spread over an
area of 25 sq. kms. and is divided into various municipal
wards, against the "locality" is wholly insufficient
description and the respondent or anyone else could not have
come to know from that description whether 2.298 hectares of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
land which was required for acquistion included the land
belonging to him or not. The non-disclosure of the
"locality" with precision, invalidates the notification and
renders the publication of notice a meaningless formality.
[664C-D]
2.4. Apart from this, even the "public purpose" which
has been mentioned in the schedule to the notification as
"residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys no idea about
the purpose of acquisition rendering the notification as
invalid in law. There is no indication as to what type of
residential accommodation was proposed or for whom or any
other details. [665C-D]
2.5. The State cannot acquire the land of a citizen for
building some residence for another, unless the same is in
"public interest" or for the benefit of the "public" or an
identifiable section thereof. In the absence of the details
about the alleged "public purpose" for which the land was
sought to be acquired no one could comprehend as to why the
land was being acquired and therefore was prevented from
taking any further steps in the matter. [665D-E]
2.6. Besides, there is also non-application of mind by
the authorities concerned and rather casual manner in
dealing with the property of the citizen vitiating the
acquisition proceedings. Whereas the letter of the
660
Executive Engineer of the Housing Board to the Collector had
indicated that the Chairman of the Board had found the land
suitable for "construction of buildings and shops under the
self-financing scheme", the notification issued under
Section 4(1) makes no mention thereof and instead declares
the public purpose to be ‘residential. Again in the
declaration under Section 6(1) "public purpose" has been
stated to be "housing scheme of Housing Board" and not
"construction of buildings and shops under the self
financing scheme". Admittedly, apart from this letter there
was no other material with the State Government and,
therefore, it is not understandable on what material, did
the State Government state the "public purpose" in different
terms in the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6(1).
These factors go to expose non-application of mind by the
authorities while issuing the notification in question and
it appears that they were not even sure about the "public
purpose" for which the land was sought to be acquired.
[666F-H; 667A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 8788 of 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.1989 of Madhya
Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 514 of 1984.
WITH
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2724 of 1992.
D.D. Thakur, S.K. Gambhir, V. Gambhir, Sakesh Kumar,
Rajinder Singhvi and Satish K. Agnihotri for the
Petitioners.
Shanti Bhushan, U.N. Bachawat, S. Atreya and Sushil
Kumar Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. A.S. ANAND, J. On 12th of April, 1984, the
Collector Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, issued a Notification,
purporting to be under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1984 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) to the effect that
land detailed in the schedule attached thereto was required
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
for a public purpose. The Notification further discloses
that the State Government being of the opinion that the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act were
applicable in respect of the land required to be
661
acquired, it dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5(A)
of the Act.
The schedule to the notification provided as follows:
SCHEDULE
Particulars of Land
------------------------------------------------------------------
Distt. | Tehsil | City/ | Approxi- | Authorised | Detail of
| | Village| mate area | Officer under| public
| | | in Hectares| Section 4(2) | purpose
--------|---------|--------|-----------|--------------|-----------
(1) | (2) |(3) | (4) | (5) | (6)
--------|---------|--------|-----------|--------------|-----------
Mandsaur| Mandsaur|Mandsaur| 2.298 | Executive | Residen-
| | | | Engineer M.P.| tial
| | | | Housing |
| | | | Construction |
| | | | Board, Ratlam|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The aforesaid notification was followed by a
declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act, issued on April
16, 1984. In the schedule to that declaration, Khasra
number of the proposed land with respective areas were
provided and in column (2) requiring the mention of "public
purpose" for which the land is required it was stated for
"housing scheme of Housing Board". In column (3), it was
stated that the plant of land may be inspected in the office
of the Collector".
The respondent, herein, filed a writ-Petition in the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, challenging the validity of
the notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the
Act as also the declaration made under Section 6(1) of the
Act on various grounds. The main thrust of the challenge
was that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory
requirements of the Act and that recourse to the urgency
provisions under Section 17(1) of the Act could not be had
since the land was not "waste or arable" which is the sine
qua non for exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the
Act. The challenge to the notifications succeeded and the
acquisition proceedings were quashed by the High Court by
the judgment impugned before us by the Madhya Pradesh Housing
Board through his Special Leave Petition.
Relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the
special leave petition
662
are as follows:
The executive engineer of the Madhya Pradesh Housing
Construction Division on 3.9.1983 addressed a letter to the
Land Acquisition Officer, Madhya Pradesh Housing
Construction Board, Bhopal, stating therein that during the
tour of the Chairman of the Board, he had found private land
measuring 2.29 hectares situate near the bus stand in
Mandsaur city, to be "absolutely suitable for the
construction of buildings and shops under self financing
scheme" and requested that the said land be acquired on
priority basis. On receipt of this letter, the Land
Acquisition Officer, addressed a communication, on
15.2.1984, to the Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh,
Housing Department, with a request to forward the matter
along with his recommendation to the Collector, Ratlam for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
favour of publication of a notification in the M.P. Gazette
for the acquisition of the said land under Sections 4(1) and
17 of the Land Acquisition Act". On April 12, 1984, the
Collector Mandsaur, M.P., issued the notification under
Sections 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act and followed it by a
declaration under Section 6 of the Act on April 16, 1984.
Mr. D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
the appellant assailed the findings of the High Court by
characterising the same as based on "hypertechnicalities".
Argued Mr. Thakur that since acquisition of land had been
made at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent
of land, the absence of providing detailed particulars of
the land or the locality where it was situate, could not
vitiate the notification, more so when sufficient
particulars had been provided in the notification issued
under section 6(1) of the Act wherein it had also been
indicated that the site plan of the land was available in
the office of the Collector.
It was also argued that the "public purpose" mentioned
in the schedule to the notification issued under Sections
4(1) and 17(1) of the Act, as also in the notification
issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, was sufficiently clear
and the finding of the High Court that the notifications
were vague on the account was incorrect. Mr. Thakur, further
submitted that the absence of a finalised housing scheme
could not vitiate the acquisition proceedings and that the
High Court fell in error in holding that recourse could not
be had to the urgency provisions under section 17 of the
Act.
It is settled law that the process of acquisition has
to start with a
663
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, which is
mandatory, and even in cases of urgency, the issuance of
notification under Section 4 is a condition precedent to the
exercise of any further powers under the Act. Any
notification which is aimed at depriving a man of his
property, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
has to be strictly construed and any serious lapse on the
part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the
proceedings and cannot be ignored by the courts. The object
of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is two-
fold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government
and a public notice by the Collector to the effect that the
land, as specified therein, is needed or is likely to be
needed by the Government for the "public purpose" mentioned
therein; and secondly, it authorises the departmental
officers or officers of the local authourity, as the case
may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2)
of the Act. The notification has to be published in the
locality and particularly persons likely to be affected by
the proposal have to be put on notice that such an activity
is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with
sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which
the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but also the
"locality" where the land is situate with as full a
description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired
to enable the "interested" persons to know as to which land
is being acquired and for what purpose and to take further
steps under the Act by filing objections etc., since it is
open to such persons to canvass the non-suitability of the
land for the alleged "public purpose" also. If a
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective and
does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it not
only vitiates the notification, but also renders all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, bad.
A reference to the Schedule appended to the Section
4(1) notification, in the instant case, shows that the only
description given about the particulars of 2.298 hectares of
the land proposed to be acquired is that the same is situate
in District Mandsaur, Tehsil Mandsaur, Village Mandsaur. In
column (6) the "public purpose" for which the land is
required is stated to be "residential"
In the schedule to the notification issued under
Section 6 of the Act, particulars of khasra number with the
extent of land in each khasra number have been provided.
The "public purpose" has been stated to be "for housing
scheme of housing board" and it is also stated against
column (3) that "the plan of the land may be inspected in
the office of the Collector".
664
Why these particulars were not given in the Section 4
notification has not been explained.
The High Court found that Mandsaur is no more a small
village but a big city, which is divided into 35 municipal
wards having a population of more than 80,000 people and is
spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and the absence of the
details of the land or the locality where the same is
situate, vitiates the notification for non-compliance with
the provisions of the Act.
The description of the land in the notification issued
under Sections 4(1) and 17(1), in our opinion, is very
cryptic. Not only no khasra numbers have been given, even
the precise "locality" has not been indicated. Mere mention
of Mandsaur, which is spread over an area of 25 sq. kms. and
is divided into various municipal wards, against the
"locality" is wholly insufficient description and the
respondent or anyone else could not have come to know from
that description whether 2.298 hectares of land which was
required for acquisition included the land belonging to him
or not. The non-disclosure of the "locality" with
precision, invalidates the notification and renders the
publication of notice a meaningless formality.
In Narendrajit Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.,
[1970] 3 SCR 278, while dealing with the requirements of a
valid notification under Section 4 of the Act, this Court
observed that the defect of non-mention of the locality
where the proposed land was situate in the notification was
a very serious defect vitiating the notification. In that
case, the schedule attached to the notification issued under
Section 4(1) and 17(1) of the Act read as follows:
"SCHEDULE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distt. | Pargana | Mauza | Approxi- | For what purpose | Remarks
| | | mate area| required |
-------|---------|-------|----------|---------------------------|---------
-
Rampur | Bilaspur| Gokal | 125 acres| For the rehabilitation of |
| | Nagari| | East Pakistan displaced |
| | | | families, under the |
| | | | Ministry of |
| | | | Rehabilitation, |
| | | | Government of India." |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Court opined that though Section 4(1) does not
require the
665
identity of the land which may ultimately be acquired to be
specified with too many details but it undoubtedly casts
upon the government a duty to "specify the locality in which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
the land is needed". In Narendrajit Singh’s case (supra),
this Court also repelled the argument identical to the one
raised by Mr. Thakur that since detailed particulars of the
land had been given in the notification issued under Section
6(1) of the Act, the absence of those particulars in Section
4(1) notification was of no consequence.
The Court said:
"In our view the defect in a notification under
s.4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars
in the notification under s.6(1)."
Apart from the defect in the impugned notification, as
noticed above, we find that even the "public purpose" which
has been mentioned in the schedule to the notification as
"residential" is hopelessly vague and conveys no idea about
the purpose of acquisition rendering the notification as
invalid in law. There is no indication as to what type of
residential accommodation was proposed or for whom or any
other details. The State cannot acquire the land of a
citizen for building some residence for another, unless the
same is in " public interest" or for the benefit of the
"public" or an identifiable section thereof. In the absence
of the details about the alleged "public purpose" for which
the land was sought to be acquired, no-one could comprehend
as to why the land was being acquired and therefore was
prevented from taking any further steps in the matter.
In Munshi Singh & Others etc. etc. v. Union of India
etc. etc., [1973] 1 SCR 973 the notification issued under
Section 4(1) of the Act had stated the purpose for
acquisition as "for planned development of the area". A
note was also appended in the notification on the effect
that the "plan of the land may be inspected in the office of
the Collector, Meerut". This Court, dealing with the
requirements of Section 4 in the context of the necessity to
state with clarity the "public purpose" in the notification,
observed:
"it is apparent from sub-s. (2) that the public
purpose which has to be stated in sub-s. (1) of s.4
has to be particularised because unless that is
done the various matters which are mentioned in
sub-s. (2) cannot be carried out; for instance, the
officer concerned or his servants and workmen
cannot do any
666
act necessary to ascertain whether it is suitable
for the purpose for which it is being acquired.
If the public purpose stated in s. 4(1) is planned
development of the area without anything more it is
extremely difficult to comprehend how all the
matters set out in sub-s. (2) can be carried out by
the officer specially authorised in this behalf and
by his servants and workmen".
[p.981]
The Court then went on to say:
"As already noticed in the notifications under s. 4
all that was stated was that the land was required
for "planned development of the area". There was
no indication whatsoever whether the development
was to be of residential and building sites or of
commercial and industrial plots nor was it possible
for any one interested in the land sought to be
acquired to find out what kind of planned
development was under contemplation i.e. whether
the land would be acquired and the development made
by the Government or whether the owners of
properties would be required to develop a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
particular area in a specified way...
[p.981]
This Court finally held that owing to the vagueness and
indefiniteness of the "public purpose" stated in the
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the acquisition
proceedings were bad and the entire acquisition proceedings
were quashed. Munshi Singh’s case (supra) was at a much
better footing than the instant case, where the only
disclosure of the "public purpose" is stated to be
"residential".
That apart, this case also discloses non-application of
mind by the authorities concerned and rather casual manner
in dealing with the property of the citizens vitiating the
acquisition proceedings. Whereas the letter of the
Executive Engineer of the Housing Board to the Collector had
indicated that the Chairman of the Board had found the land
suitable for "construction of buildings and shops under the
self financing scheme", the notification issued under
Section 4<1> makes no mention thereof instead declares the
"Public purpose" to be "residential" . Again, in the
declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Act the "public
purpose" has been stated to be "housing scheme of Housing
Board" and not construction of buildings and shops under the
self financing scheme" ! Admittedly, apart from the
667
letter referred to above, there was no other material with
the State Government and, therefore, it is not
understandable on what material, did the State Government
state the "public purpose" in different terms in the
notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6(1). No
explanation has been furnished by the learned counsel as to
why different public purposes were mentioned in the letter
of the Board and the two notifications issued under Section
4 and 6 of the Act. These factors go to expose non-
application of mind by the authorities while issuing the
impugned notification and it appears that they were not even
sure about the "public purpose" for which the land was
sought to be acquired.
We have, in view of the above discussion, not been
persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the
High Court and we agree with the High Court that the
impugned notification is vitiated on account of being vague
and for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of
the Act.
In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for
us to express any opinion on the question as to whether
recourse could at all be had, in the instant case, to the
urgency provisions or the effect of the absence of even a
draft or contemplated scheme, let alone a finalised scheme
prepared by the Housing Board, before the issuance of
declaration under section 6 of the Act.
Special Leave Petitions (Civil) are, therefore,
dismissed.
N.P.V. Petitions dismissed.
668