http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AHUTHORITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAN KALUAN SAMITI, SHEOPURI, GHAZIABAD & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1045            1996 SCC  (2) 365  JT 1996 (1)   568        1996 SCALE  (1)448

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Though  notice   has  been  served  on  the  contesting respondents, they  have not  appeared either  in  person  or through counsel.      We have  heard Shri  O.P. Rana,  learned senior counsel for the  petitioner. The  acquisition of  the  land  by  the Ghaziabad   Development    Authority   was    initiated   by notification of  February 25,  1986, under  Section 4 (1) of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894  (for  short,  ’the  Act’); enquiry under  Section 5A  was dispensed  with under Section 17(4) of  the Act  and the  Declaration under  Section 6 was made on  February  26,  1986.  Both  the  notifications  and declaration were simultaneously published on April 10, 1986. The respondents  1 and 2 have filed writ petition No.7155/86 in the  High Court  of Allahabad challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground that local publication as required under Section 4(1) was not made. The exercise of  the power  under Section 17(4) was also wrongly invoked, as  simultaneously notification  under Section 4(1) and declaration  under Section 6 could not be published. The High Court  accepted the  contentions and  by impugned order dated November  3,  1987,  allowed  the  writ  petition  and quashed  the   notification  of   Section  4(1)   and    the declaration under  Section 6.  Thus this  appeal by  special leave.      Section 4(1)  of the  Act envisages whenever it appears to the  appropriate Government  that land in any locality is needed or  is likely  to be needed for any Public purpose or for a  company  a  notification  to  that  effect  shall  be published  in   the  official   Gazette  and  in  two  daily newspapers          circulating in that locality of which at least one  shall be in the regional language. This was added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Earlier thereto under the local amendment  of   U.P.,  publication   in  one  newspaper  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

sufficient. The Collector is required to cause public notice of the  substance  of  such  notification  to  be  given  at convenient places in the said locality. The State of UP made amendment to  Section 4  by  UP  Land  Acquisition  VIII  of 1974/XXII of  1954, whereunder  between the  words "and" and the word  "Collector" the following shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted. The proviso thereto was added as under:      "Except in the case of any land to which      by virtue  of a  direction of  the State      Government  under   sub  section   4  of      Section 17  the provision of Section 5 A      shall not apply". In other words, the mandatory requirement of the publication of the  notification in the locality was dispensed with in a case where  the Government  had opined  that  the  land  was urgently needed,  under Section  17(4). When the authorities have dispensed  with  the  enquiry  under  Section  5A,  the requirement  of   local   publication   shall   not   apply. Consequently,   the   finding   of   the   High   Court   is unsustainable. It  is rather unfortunate that this amendment was not  brought to  the notice  of the  High Court when the writ petition  was allowed.  But operation  of the statutory local  amendment   to  the  Act  has  dispensed  with  local publication  in   two  newspapers.  The  notification  under Section 4  [1] is  not vitiated  for non-publication  of the notification in the local newspapers.      The next  question is whether Section 17(4) applies and the action taken was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It is seen that but for local amendment, on publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and exercising of the power  under   Section  17(4),   the  publication   of   the declaration under  Section 6  is mandatory pre-condition for taking possession  of  the  land.  Even  on  publication  of declaration under  Section 6,  notice  under  Section  9  is necessary to  the owner or person interested in the land and on expiry  of 15  days from  the date  of the  notice  under Section 9  the Government  is entitled to take possession of the land.  By operation  of Sub-section  (2) of  Section  17 though award  has not  been made  under Section  11 the land stands vested in the Government, free from all encumbrances. In the  State of  UP  an  amendment  has  been  made  by  UP Amendment Act  repeal 32  of 1990  and the  Land Acquisition [Validation] Act  1991, (UP  Act 5  of 1991), which had come into force  w.e.f. September  24, 1984, envisaging insertion of a  proviso to  sub-section (4)  of Section 17 which reads thus:      "In Section  17 of  the Land Acquisition      Act, 1894, as amended in its application      to Uttar  Pradesh, hereinafter  referred      to as  the principal Act, in sub-section      (4)  the   following  proviso  shall  be      inserted at  the end and shall be deemed      to have  been inserted  on September 24,      1984, namely, Provided that where in the      case of  any  land,  notification  under      Section  4,  sub-section  (1)  has  been      published in  the Official Gazette on or      after  September  24,  1984  but  before      January 11,  1989  and  the  appropriate      Government has  under  this  sub-section      directed that  the provisions of Section      5-A shall not apply, a declaration under      Section 6  in respect of the land may be      made either simultaneously with or at any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    time  after   the  publication   in  the      Official  Gazette  of  the  notification      under Section 4, sub-section (1)."      In other  words by  operation of the proviso to Section 17(4) in  relation to  its application  to the  State of UP, Notification under  Section 4(1)  and the  declaration under Section 6 would simultaneously be published. The appropriate Authority is  empowered to  issue notice under Section 9 and take possession  on expiry  of  15  days.  The  High  Court, therefore, was  not  correct  in  its  conclusion  that  the Government  would  not  have  published  simultaneously  the notification under  Section 4(1)  and the  declaration under Section 6  and immediately  taken possession  of the land in question.      In that  view of  the matter,  the decision of the High Court in  the impugned  judgment  is  clearly  illegal.  The appeal is  accordingly allowed,  but  in  the  circumstances without costs.