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