Narindrajit Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J. These two appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Allahabad High Coll! c must succeed on the short ground that the provisions of s. 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not complied with. In C.A. 1192/67 a notification was issued under s. 4 of the Act on October 15 1960 for acquisi-· tion of the land in dispute. Under s. ·i 7 ( 4) of' the Act the provisions of s. SA were dispensed with. On October 28, 1960 the notification under s. 6 was issued. The appellant was directed to be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under s. 9 on December 4, 1960. On December 5, 1960 the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceedings. The petition was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench.

Section 4(1) of the Act is in the following terms:- "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, lffid the Collector shall cause public notice of the s.ubstance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality"; It is common ground that the Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenienJ places in tl1e locality where the land sought to be acquired was situated. In other words there was no compliance whatsoever with the second part of sub-s. (1) of s. 4. The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of s. 4 ( 1) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the . entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. We may refer in this connection to Khub Chand & Others v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1).

In that case this Court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a· person whose land is sought to be acquired of the intention of the officer to enter the land. Under s. 4(2) such a notice is a necessary condition for the exercise of the pewer of entry non-compliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful. In State of Mv~ore v. Abdul Raznk Sahib(') no notices as required by s. 4 ( 1) of the Act were published in the locality till after the lapse of about I 0 weeks. The question for consideration (!). [1967] 1 S. C. R. 120. (2) C. A. 2361 of 1968 dt. August 11. 1972. was whether the notification issued under s. 4 was a valid one. This Court held that in the case of. a notification under s. 4 the law has prescribed that in addition to publication of a notice in the official gazette the Collector must also _give publicity of the substance of the notification in the con~emed locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied s.

4 of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with. The purpose behind such a notice was that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so a~ to prefer any objections under s. 5-A which confers a valuable right. Learned counsel for the State has, however, contended that according to these decisions it is only when the persons interested can file objections under s. 5-A that the public notice of the substance of the notification under s. 4 ( 1) by the Collector would be necessary whereas in the present case the applicability of the provisions of s. 5-A have been dispensed with under s. 17 ( 4) of the Act at the .same time the notification under s. 4(1) was issuefl. It is wholly unnecessary that the interested parties should have·the requisite information of the acquisition proceedings as they are not entitled to file objections under s. 5A. We are unable to accept such a contention. In our judgment the provisions of s.

4 ( 1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. Section 4(1) does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power under s. 17 ( 4) the appropriate government directs that the provisions of s. 5-A shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability of s. SA. It lays down in nnequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be simultaneously done under s. 4(1), i.e., a notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and the Collector has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated. The scheme of s. 4 is that after the steps contemplated under sub-s. ( 1 ) have been taken the officer authorised by the Government can do the various acts set out in sub-s. (2;. It is not required under s.

17 ( 4) of the principal Act that when a notification under s. 4 (! ) is issued the direction should be made simµltaneously if the State Government so desires. Such an or~er Or direction can be made even at a later stage. The effect of the direction made under s. J 7 ( 4) is that a declaration can be made under s. 6 in resnect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification under s. 4(1) and thereafter the Collector can take Possession. But as mentioned before in. a given case the aonrooriate government mav not consi<ler it necessary to take action under s. J 7 ( 4) simultaneouslv with the notification under s. 4(1) and it mav choose to invoke its provisions only at a later stage in view of any urgency that may crop NARINDRAJIT v. U.P. STATB (Grover, J.) up. Thus the construction of s. 4( 1) cannot be made to depend upon any action or direction which the State Government may choose to make under s. 17 ( 4) of the principal Act. In our opinion s.

4 ( 1 ) has to be read as an integrated provision which contains two. conditions; the first is that the notification in the official gazette must be published and the second is that the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given. These two conditions must be satisfied for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of s. 4 (1). In the above view of the matter the appeals which involve the same point must succeed. They are consequently allowed and the acquisition proceedings in question in both the appeals shall stand quashed. The appellants will be entitled to costs in this Court One hearing fee. S.B.W. Appeals allcweil •.