State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This appeal arises from certain lanu acquisition proceedings. The Government of .Mysore notified the lands belonging to the respondent for acquisition. The notification under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the official gazette on August 17, 1961, but no notices as required by that section were published in the locaiity till November t and 9, 1961. The respondent filed his objections only on December 4, 1961. The question for consideration is whether the notification issued under s. 4 is a valid notification. The respondent challenged the validity of the notification before the High Court of Mysore by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court came to the conclusion that the impugned notification was invalid and consequently quashed the same. As against that decision this appeal has been brought after obtaining certificate under Aft. 133(1 )(b) of the Constitution.

We shall now read~- 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It says : "4. OJ Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to b.e needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazl)tte, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the suOO!ance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality." The section prescribes two requirements, namely, ( l) a notification to be published in the Official Gazette, and (2) ·the Collector causing to ,l!ive public notice of the substance of that notification at convenient places in the concerned locality. Now, we may turn to s. SA(l) of the Act which says : "SA. ( 1)

Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub-section (I), as being needed or· likely to be need.'.:<! for a public purpose or for a Company niay, within thirty days after the issue "of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality,. as the case may be." Section SA empowers the interested person to object to the acquisition of any land but his objection should be filed within thirty days from the date of tl!e issue of the notification. Any objection filed thereafter need not be considered as the same is filed after the time stipulated in s. SA (1). With th!l above background we have to consider the scope of s. 4(1). Under certain circumstances publication in the Official Gazettes are presumed to be notice to all concerned. But. in the case of a notification under s.

4 of the Land Acquisition Act the law has prescribed that in addition to the pul>Ii· cation of the notification in the Official Gazette the Collector must also ,itive publicity of the substance of the notification in the con· cerned locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied, s. 4 of !the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to have been complied. The publication of the notice in the locality is a mandatory re· quirement. It has an important purpose behind it. In the absence of such publication the interested persons may not be able to file their objections about the· acquisition proceedings and they will be deprived of the right of representation provided under s. SA, which is very valuable right. This very question came up for consideration before the High Court of Mysore in Gangadharaiah v. - State of Mysore and Ors. ( 1), and the High Court ruled that s.

4(1) requires that there should both be a notification in the gazette as also a public not>ce in the locality in which the property proposed to be acquired is situate. l't is only when the notification is published in the Olli· cial Gazette and it is accompanied by or immediately followed by the public notice, that a person interested in the property pro" posed to be acquired can be regarded to have had notice of the prop0sed acquisition. We are entirely in agreement with the ralc laid down by that decision. The impugned notification has not complied with the requirement of the law. Hence the High Court was justified in qua~hing the proceedings taken. In the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for .us to consider either the applicability or· the scope of the Mysore Act 17 of 1961 to the pre&elrt proceedings. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The respondent is not represented before this• Court. Hence the~ will be no order as to costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.

(1 l (1>'61i MJI W. 833