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