http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: MUNSHI SINGH & OTHERS ETC.  ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA ETC.  ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1972

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. HEGDE, K.S. PALEKAR, D.G.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 1150            1973 SCR  (1) 973  1973 SCC  (2) 337

ACT: Land   Acquisition  Act,  1894-s.  5A-No   opportunity   was available  to  the appellant to file objection u/s.  5-A  in absence of definite scheme and the public purpose for  which the  land was required was vague and indefinite-Whether  the acquisition proceedings bad in law.

HEADNOTE: Under  the  U.P. (Regulation of  Building  Operations)  Act, 1958,  a  notification was issued by  the  U.P.  Government, declaring Ghaziabad a regulated area under S. 3 of the  said Act.  On July 16, 1960 a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition   Act,  was  issued  by  the  State   Government declaring  its  intention to acquire  land  measuring  about 34,000  acres  for  planned development  of  the  area.   On December 23, 1961, a notification was issued under  Sections 6  and  17 of the Acquisition Act in respect of an  area  of 19.75  acres.  This was followed by other notifications  and on February 9, 1962, by another notification under S. 4  was issued by modifying the earlier notification dated July  16, 1960, By this notification, the said 34000 acres was reduced to 6158 acres. On  July 4, 1962, the appellant made an application  to  the Land Acquisition Officer, for supplying a copy of the scheme in  order to file objection under S. 5-A of the  Acquisition Act.  The Land Acquisition Officer however, ordered that  no such schemes of the planned development was available in his office.    On  September  4,  1962,  the  State   Government sanctioned the Master Plan of Ghaziabad under the Regulation Act.   Thereafter, the appellants filed a writ  petition  in the  High  Court challenging the validity of  the  aforesaid notification.   A batch of 39 writ petitions, including  the appellants   were  allowed  by  the  High  Court   and   the notifications under S. 6 of the Acquisition Act were quashed by  the High Court on the ground of invalidity of  piecemeal notifications.   On February 9, 1966, this Court decided  in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v., Bishnu Prashad & Ors. [1966]   3  S.C.R.  557,  that  piecemeal   and   successive notifications was not permissible. On February 20, 1967, the President of India promulgated the Land  Acquisition (Amendment and Validation)  Ordinance  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

this  Ordinance  was  challenged in the High  Court  by  the appellant.  Thereafter, an Act was passed on the same  lines as,  the  Ordinance.   The provision of the  Act  were  also challenged before the High Court by necessary amendments  in the writ petitions.  This Court in Udairam Sharma & Ors.  v. Union  of  India  & Ors., [1968] 3  S.C.R.  41,  upheld  the validity  of  the.   Acquisition (Amendment)  Act  of  1967. Thereafter,  the High Court dismissed the writ petitions  of the appellants. The counsel for the appellants confined his arguments mainly to  one,  question. namely that no  proper,  reasonable,  or effective opportunity was available to the appellant to file by  objection under S. 5-A of the Acquisition Act,  inasmuch as the notification gave no indication that different pieces of  land  would  be acquired for  different  authorities  in different   circumstances   and  for   different   purposes. Further, the appellant did not get a reasonable  opportunity of  objecting  under  s. 5-A since  the  purpose  shown  was extremely vague and there was no definite 974 scheme  before the State Government at the material time  to show bow the land would be developed and to what use it will be  put.   It was pointed out that  different  notifications published  under  S. 6 of the Acquisition Act from  time  to time  clearly  indicated that the State Government  did  not have  any  specific scheme of development at  the  time  the notification  under S. 4 was published.  It was pointed  out that  the  whole object of s. 5-A would be defeated  if  the public purpose was stated vaguely and without any indication of the nature or the purpose for which the land is being  or is intended to be acquired. Allowing the appeal, HELD : (i) The Acquisition Act was enacted to amend the  law for  the  acquisition  of land for public  purpose  and  for Companies.   The expression "Public Purpose" was defined  by S. 3-F.  The expression "Public Purpose" includes  provision for  or in connection with the laying out of village  sites, townships  or  the extension of planned development  or  im- provement  of existing village sites or townships.   S.  5-A provides  that any person interested in any land  which  has been  notified under S, 4. Sub-Section (1) as  being  needed for  a public purpose, may object to the acquisition  within 30  days  after the issue of the  notification.   Every  ob- jection under Sub-Section (1) shall be made to the Collector in  writing,  and the Collector shall give the  objector  an opportunity of being heard.  The Collector after hearing all such  objections,  may  make a  report  to  the  appropriate Government.   The decision of the appropriate government  on the objection shall be final.- [981F] It is apparent from Sub-Section (2) of S. 4 that the  public purpose  which has to be stated in Sub-Section (1) of  S.  4 has  to be particularised because, unless that is done,  the various  matters  which were mentioned  in  Sub-Section  (2) cannot  be carried out.  If the public purpose stated in  S. 4(1)  is planned development, without anything more,  it  is extremely  difficult to comprehend how all the  matters  set out  in  Sub-Section (2) can be carried out by  the  officer concerned. [981C] (ii) S.  5-A  embodies a very just and  wholesome  principle that  a person who is deprived of his property, is  given  a reasonable  opportunity  to  be heard.  The  right  to  file objection  under  S.  5-A  is a  substantial  right  when  a person’s property is being threatened with acquisition,  and that right cannot be taken away as if by sidewind. [981D] Nandeshwar Prasad & Anr. v. The State of U.P. & Ors., [1964]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

3 S.C.R. 440. In  the present case, the notification 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 commercial and industrial class,  nor was it possible for any one to find out that kind of planned development  was  under contemplation.  If the  Master  Plan which  came  to  be sanctioned in  September  4,  1962,  was available  for  inspection,  the  position  may  have   been different.   The words that were found in the  notification, "planned  development of the area" were wholly  insufficient and  conveyed no idea as to the specific purpose  for  which the lands were to be utilised. [982B] (iii)     The Acquisition Act did not originally provide for filing   or   hearing   of  objections   to   the   proposed acquisition.,  It was only by the Amending Act of 1923  that S. 5-A was inserted in the Acquisition Act.  Upto that time, the view was that the wishes of the owners of the land  were wholly  irrelevant.  But after the insertion of S.  5-A  the position has completely changed, and it cannot be said  that the owner’s wishes are 975 not relevant and he does not need an opportunity to file his objections.   A person whose land is likely to  be  acquired must  have an opportunity to submit his objections and  that he  can  do only if the notification tinder S.  4(1),  while mentioning  the public purpose, gives some definite  indica- tion  or particulars of the said purpose which would  enable the persons concerned to object effectively, if so  desired. In  the absence of such specific or particular purpose,  the objector  cannot file any proper or cogent objections  under S. 5-A which he has a right to do under that provision.   In the  present case, owing to the vaguness and  indefiniteness of  the public purpose stated in the notifications under  S. 4(1)  and  in the absence of any proof that  the  appellants were  either  aware of or were shown this scheme  or  Master Plan  in respect of the, planned development of the area  in question,  the  appellants  were  wholly  unable  to  object effectively  and  exercise their right under S. 5-A  of  the Acquisition Act. [983E] Babu  Barkya Thakur v. The State of Bombay & Ars.  [1961]  1 S.C.R. 128, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals No.   2356  of 1968. Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the  Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1968 of the  Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No. 662 of 1971  and Civil Appeals Nos. 1139, 1475 and 1476 of 1971. Appeals  by  certificate from the judgment and  order  dated April 2, 1968 of the High-Court at Allahabad in Civil  Misc. Writ    No. 3671, 3670 and 3669 of 1967 respectively andCivil Appeals Nos. 1140,and 1785 of 1971 Appeals  by  certificate from the judgment and  order  dated April   2,   1968  of  the  High  Court  of   Allahabad   in Civil Misc.Writ Nos. 3667 and 3668 of 1967 respectively  and Civil Appeal No. 1888 of 1970 Appeal  by  certificate from the judgment and  decree  dated March  26, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in  Civil  Misc. Writ No. 465 of 1967. K.R.  Chowdhry,  for the appellant (in C.A. No.  2356  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

1968). G.L.  Sanghi  and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.  1  (in C.A. No. 2356/68) and G. N. Dikshit, M. V. Goswami and O. P. Rana,  for the State of U.P., Collector of Meerut &  Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut (in all the appeals). 0.P.  Rana, for the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad (in  all the appeals). U.P.  Singh  and Shiv Pujan Singh, for the  appellant  in C.A. Nos. 1139, 1140 and 1785 of 1971). 976 L.M.  Singhvi, P. C. Bhartari, for the appellants (in  C. A. Nos. 1475 and 1476 of 1971). L.M.  Singhvi,  U.  P. Singh and S. C.  Dingra,  for  the appellant (in C.A. No. 1888 of 1970). A.K.  Sen, G. P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for  respondent No. 4 (in C.A. No. 1888/70). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals from the decision of the  Allahabad High  Court involve a common point and shall stand  disposed of by this judgment. It is necessary to state the facts only in C.A.1888 of 1970. The  U.P.  (Regulation  of  Building  Operations)  Act  1958 received the assent of the President on October 8, 1958.  On December  10,  1958 a notification was issued  by  the  U.P. Government  declaring Ghaziabad a regulated area under S.  3 of  the  aforesaid Act.  In February  1959  the  Controlling Authority under S. 4 of the Regulation Act was  constituted. On July 16, 1960 a notification was issued under S. 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act by the State Government declaring  its intention  to acquire land measuring about 34,000  acres  in fifty  villages of Ghaziabad for planned development of  the area.  On December 23, 1961 a notification was issued  under ss. 6 and 17 of the Acquisition Act in respect of an area of 19.75  acres.   This was followed  by  successive  piecemeal notifications  on various dates in 1962 and 1963.   On  Feb- ruary 9, 1962 another notification was issued under S. 4  of the Acquisition Act modifying the earlier notification dated July 16, 1960.  By this notification the proposed area  from 34,000 acres was reduced to 6158 acres.  On July 4, 1962 the appellants   made  an  application  to  the   Special   Land Acquisition  Officer Ghaziabad for supplying a copy  of  the scheme  of  the planned development for  which  notification under  S.  4  had  been  issued  to  enable  them  to   make representations at the hearing of the objections filed under S.  5A of the Acquisition Act.  It was mentioned inter  alia in  that application that the Government had  not  published the scheme of the planned development and without a copy  of the scheme for which the notification had been published "no forceful  arguments could be submitted".  The  Special  Land Acquisition  Officer  made  the  following  order  on   that application :               "The scheme of the planned development is  not               necessary for a notification under S. 4 of the               Act,  as such, no such scheme of  the  planned               development is available in this office." On  September, 4, 1962 the State Government  sanctioned  the Master Plan of Ghaziabad under the Regulation Act.  On Sept- ember  27, 1962 a writ petition was filed by the  appellants in the 977 High  Court  challenging  the  validity  of  the   aforesaid notifications.  Several other writ petitions were also filed by  other petitioners.  On December 10, 1965 a batch  of  39 writ  petitions  including  the  appellants’  petition  were allowed by the, High Court and the notifications under s.  6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

of  the  Acquisitions  Act were quashed  on  the  ground  of invalidity  of  piecemeal notifications.  Another  batch  of writ   petitions   Was  similarly   allowed   quashing   the notifications under s. 6 of the Acquisition Act on the  same ground.  On February 9, 1966 this court decided in State  of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma &  Others(1) that  piecemeal and Successive notifications under s.  6  of the  Acquisition Act was not permissible.  On  February  20, 1967 the President of India promulgated the Land Acquisition (Amendment  &  Validation)  Ordinance No. 1  of  1967.   The validity  of this Ordinance apart from the legality  of  the notifications  issued was challenged in the High,  Court  by the  appellants in February 1967.  In April 1967 an Act  was passed  on the same lines as the Ordinance.  The  provisions of  the  Act were also challenged before the High  Court  by necessary  amendment  in  the writ petitions  filed  by  the appellants.   This Court in Udai Ram Sharma A Othrs etc.  v. Union  of  India  & Others(2) upheld  the  validity  of  the Acquisition  Amending  Act of 1967.  On March 26,  1968  the High  Court dismissed the writ petition of  the  appellants. In  view  of  the  judgment of this  Court  the  High  Court repelled  the  contentions of the appellants  impugning  the validity  of  the Acquisition Amendment Act  1967.   Another point which was agitated before the High Court was that  the notification  under  s.  4 was too  vague  and  afforded  no adequate  basis for the lodging of objection under s. 5A  of the Acquisition Act.  Certain other points were also  raised which  need not be mentioned.  The High Court observed  that all these points had been urged in the writ petition No.  55 of  1963  which  had been heard along with  any  other  writ -petitions  by  the Division Bench which,  by  its  judgment dated  December  24,  1965, had  negatived  them.   For  the reasons  mentioned  in that judgment these  contention  were also repelled. Dr. L. M. Singhvi sought to raise a number of points  before us  but ultimately he confined his arguments mainly  to  one question.  Reference has been made to the notification dated July  14  1960  issued  under s. 4  as  also  to  subsequent notification  dated  February 9, 1962 amending  the  earlier notification.  The earlier notification to the extent it  is material is as follows :-               "In  pursuance of the provisions of under  (?)               sub-s.   (1)   of  section  4  of   the   Land               Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No. 1 of 1894), the               Governor of U.P. is pleased (1) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 557. L172Sup CI/73 (2) [1968] 3 S.C. R. 41. 978               to  notify  for general information  that  the               land mentioned in the schedule is likely to he               needed for a public purpose.                2.Under  Section 5-A of the said Act,  any               person  interested  in the  land  may,  within               thirty   days   after  the   issue   of   this               notification, make an objection to the  acqui-               sition  of  the  land  for  any  land  in  the               locality in writing to the Collector,  Meerut.               For what purpose : For planned development  of               the area.               Note :-A plan of the land may be inspected  in               the office of Collector, Meerut." In the writ petition a specific plea was taken in paras 3  5 (b)   and  36  that  no  proper,  reasonable  or   effective opportunity  was  available to the appellants  to  file  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

objections  under s. 5A of the Acquisition Act  inasmuch  as the notification gave no indication that different pieces of land   would  be  acquired  for  different  authorities   in different circumstances and for different purposes.  Accord- ing  to para 36 the appellants did not get any effective  or reasonable  opportunity  of  objecting under s.  5A  of  the Acquisition Act inasmuch as the purpose shown was  extremely vague  and  there was no definite scheme  before  the  State Government  at the material time to show how the land  would be  developed and to what use it would be put.  Para  33  of the petition may also be noticed.  It is stated therein that different   notifications  published  under  S.  6  of   the Acquisition Act from time to time clearly indicated that the State  Government did not have any specific scheme of  deve- lopment  at  the  time  the  notification  under  s.  4  was published, nor had it any idea as to whether the land  would be  utilized by it or would be utilized for the purposes  of U.P. State Industrial Corporation or the Improvement  Trust, Ghaziabad.  In the return which was     filed     Para     9 contained the reply to Para 33 and this is what was  stated:               " That the allegations made in paragraph 33 of               the  petition are denied.  The scheme for  the               planned development of the area was there when               the  notification under section 4 of the  Land               Acquisition Act was issued although the scheme               at  that stage had not been finalised  in  the               details". No  reply is to be found in the return to  paragraphs  35(b) and 36 of the writ petition.  We may also refer to paragraph 14  of the petition in which the order of the  Special  Land Acquisition  Officer  was  reproduced  in  respect  of   the applications filed by the 979 appellants  for  supplying  the copy of the  scheme  of  the planned  development.  It is noteworthy that in  the  return nothing was said about this order. Dr. Singhvi has based his argument on the above  significant facts.   According to him the words in  the  notification, namely,  "for  planned  development of  the  area"  gave  no indication  whatsoever as to the precise purposes for  which the  land  was  required Planned  development  could  be  of various  kinds.  It could be for residential, industrial  or some  similar  purpose.   Moreover  for  development  of   a particular  area the Government may acquire the land  itself and  develop  it or it may control the development  of  that area by making a scheme or a Master Plan.  It is urged  that the scheme of the Acquisition Act shows that public  purpose for  which  the  land is needed or is likely  to  be  needed should be stated with sufficient particularity and in such a manner that a land owner should be able to file an objection under  s. 5A.  The whole object of s., 5A would be  defeated if  the  public purpose is stated vaguely  and  without  any indication  of the nature of the purpose for which the  land is being or is intended to be acquired. It  is  necessary to examine the scheme of  the  Acquisition Act.   This  Act  was  enacted to  amend  the  law  for  the acquisition  of land for public purpose and  for  companies. The  expression "public purpose" is defined by s. 3(f).   By the  Land  Acquisition (U.P. Amendment) Act 1954  s.  3  was amended and for clause (f) in the Central Act the  following clause was substituted               "(f) the expression "public purpose"  includes               provision for or in connection with--               (i)..............................               (ii)the   laying  out  of   village   sites,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

             townships    or   the    extension,    planned               development or improvement of existing village               sites or townships;               (iii).............................. Section  4(1) provides for a notification to be  issued  and public notice of the same to be Riven whenever it appears to the  appropriate  Government that land in  any  locality  is needed  or  is likely to be needed for any  public  purpose. Sub-s. (2) is in these terms :               "4  (2) "Thereupon it shall be lawful for  any               officer,   either   generally   or   specially               authorised by such Government in this  behalf,               and for his servants and workmen,-               to  enter upon and survey and take  levels  of               any land in such locality;               980               to  dig or bore into the sub-soil; to  do  all               other acts necessary to ascertain whether  the               land  is adopted for such purpose; to set  out               the  boundaries  of the land  proposed  to               be taken and the intended line of the work (if               any) proposed to be made thereon;               to  mark such levels, boundaries and  line  by               placing marks and cutting trenches; and, where               otherwise  the survey cannot be completed  and               the  levels taken and the boundaries and  line               marked, to cut down and clear away any part of               any standing crop, fence or jungle                 Provided that............................ Sub-sections  (1)  and  (2)  of s.  5A  being  material  for purposes of the present appeal may be set out in extenso :               (1)   "Any person interested in any land which               has been               notified under section 4, sub-s. (1), as being               needed  or  likely to be needed for  a  public               purpose  or for a Company may,  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.                (2)  Every  objection  under  subsection  (1)               shall be made to the Collector in writing, and               the  Collector  shall  give  the  objector  an               opportunity of being heard either in person or               by  pleader and shall, after hearing all  such               objections  and  after  making  such   further               enquiry,  if  any,  as  he‘  thinks  necessary               either  make a report in respect of  the  land               which has been notified under section 4,  sub-               section  (1)  or  make  different  reports  in               respect  of different parcels of such land  to               the  appropriate, Government  containing   his               recommendations  on the  objections,  together               with  the  record of the proceedings  held  by               him, for the decision of that Government.  The               decision of the appropriate Government on  the               objection shall be final". Section  6(1)  says, inter alia, that when  the  appropriate Government  is satisfied, after considering the report  made under  s.  5A(2) that any particular land is  needed  for  a public purpose or for company a declaration shall be made to that  effect by the authority mentioned therein.   According to  sub-s.  (3)  such  a  declaration  shall  be  conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company as the case may be.  After the 981

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

declaration under s. 6 the Collector has to take orders  for acquisition  under  s. 7 Section 8 provides for land  to  be marked  out,  measured and planned and s. 9 for  notices  to persons  interested.   Section II deals  with  inquiry  into measurements,  value  and  claims  and  the  award  by   the Collector.   It  is  not necessary to  refer  to  any  other provision. 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 de any act necessary to certain 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. Section 5A embodies a very just and wholesome principle that a  person  whose  property is being or  is  intended  to  be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity  of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property  belonging to that person should not be  made.   We may  refer  to the observation of this Court  in  Nandeshwar Prasad  &  Anr. v. The State of U.P. &  Others(1)  that  the right to file objections under s. 5A is a substantial  right when   a   person’s  property  is  being   threatened   with acquisition  and that right cannot be taken away as if by  a side wind.  Sub-section (2) of s. 5A makes it obligatory  on the  Collector to give an objector an opportunity  of  being heard.   After  hearing all objections  and  making  further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing  his  recommendation  on  the  objections.    The decision of the appropriate Government on the objections  is then final.  The declaration under s. 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied, on a  consideration of the report, if any, made by the Collector under s. 5A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the  persons  interested  to  file  objections  against  the proposed   acquisition  and  for  the  disposal   of   their objections.   It  is only in cases of urgency  that  special powers have been conferred on the appropriate Government  to dispense with the provisions of s. 5A: (See s. 17 (4) of the Acquisition Act). 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 (1)  [1964] 3 S.C.R. 440. 982 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  particular  area  in  a specified  way.   If  the  Master  Plan  which  came  to  be sanctioned  on  September  4, 1962 had  been  available  for inspection by the persons interested in filing objections or even  if the knowledge of its existence on the part  of  the appellants  had been satisfactorily proved the position  may have been different.  In that situation the appellants could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

not claim that they were unable to file objections owing  to the lack of any indication in the notification under s. 4 of the  nature  of  development for which the  area  was  being requisitioned.   On behalf of the State it has been  pointed out  that the appellants had themselves filed a copy of  the Master  Plan which was sanctioned on September 4,  1962  and that  it  was a matter of common knowledge that  the  Master Plan  was  under preparation.  The details relating  to  the Master  Plan and the Plan itself had been published  in  the local  newspapers and the appellants could have easily  dis- covered  what  the proposed scheme was with  regard  to  the development  of the area in which they were interested.   In view of the peculiar circumstances of these cases we gave an opportunity  to  the  State to apply for  amendment  of  its return  since  nothing  had been said  about  these  matters therein and to produce additional evidence in support of its allegations.    Such  a  petition  was  filed  and   certain documents  were sought to be placed on the record.  After  a careful consideration of the petition for amendment and  the evidence  sought to be adduced we dismissed the  prayer  for amendment  as well as for production of additional  evidence as  we  were not satisfied that the documents sought  to  be produced  were  either relevant or were required  to  enable this Court to pronounce judgment. Learned  counsel  for  the State  next  contended  that  the proposed acquisition was in pursuance of the activity  under the Regulation Act.  Moreover planned development is one  of the public purposes as defined in s. 3 (f) as amended by the U.P.  Amending  Act  1954.  Mere-mention of  such  a  public purpose  was sufficient to satisfy the requirement  of  law. Reliance  has  been placed on a decision of  this  Court  in Arnold  Rodricks  & Another v. State  of  Maharashtra(1)  in which in the notification under s. 4 it was stated that  the land was needed "for a public purpose, viz, for  development and  utilisation  of  the said lands as  an  industrial  and residential  area".  It was said that the purpose  specified was a public purpose within the Acquisition Act, The  points which arose for (1)  [1966] 3 S.C.R. 885. 983 determination in that case were entirely different.  At  any rate,   the  public  purpose  was  stated  with   sufficient particularity,  namely, for development and  utilisation  of the land as an industrial and residential area.  Once it was stated  that  the land will be utilised  for  the  aforesaid purpose  the  persons  interested  could  certainly   object effectively.  But tile mere words, as are to be found in the notifications  here "planned development of the  area"  were wholly insufficient and conveyed no idea as to the  specific purpose for which the lands were to be utilised.  It must be remembered  that  the Acquisition Act is silent  as  to  the nature of objections that could be raised.  In some of  the, States executing instructions have been issued or rules have been  framed which indicate the classes of objections  which are contemplated.  In Madras the classes of objections  that the Collectors inquiry should specifically deal with are the following:               (a)   that  the purpose for which the land  is               acquired is not a public purpose;               (b)   that  the land notified is not the  best               adapted  to the purpose intended or  that  its               area is greater than is actually required  for               the purpose, and               (c)   that the acquisition of the land or  any               land  in  the  locality is  not  desirable  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

             expedient. In Babu Barkya Thakur v. The State of Bombay & Others(1)  it was  stated in the notification under S. 4(1) that the  land was likely to be needed for purposes of a. company which was named.   A challenge was made against the validity  of  that notification  on the ground that it was not stated that  the land  was-required for a public purpose.  It was  laid  down that  where  the  land  was  required  for  a  company   the requirement  of  the law would be sufficiently  met  if  the appropriate  Government was satisfied on a report  under  s. 5A(2)  or by an inquiry under s. 40 that the purpose of  the acquisition  was  the same as contemplated by s. 40  of  the Act.   This Court said that the purpose of the  notification under s. 4 was to carry out a preliminary investigation with a view to find out after the necessary survey and taking  of levels  and, if necessary, digging or boring  into  sub-soil whether  the land was adapted for the purposes for which  it was  sought to be acquired.  It was only under s. 6  that  a firm declaration had to be made by the Government that  land with  proper  description and area was needed for  a  public purpose or a company.  Hence it was not correct to say  that any defect in the notification under, s. 4 was fatal to  the validity   of   the  proceedings   particularly   when   the acquisition  was for a company.  We are unable to accede  to the suggestion on behalf of the State that the  observations made (1) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128. 984 in  this decision can be of any avail to it in  the  present cases.   The question which we are called upon to decide  is of  an  entirely  different  nature.   It  relates  to   the notification under s. 4 in the light of s. 5A with a view to giving full effect to that section and not simply wiping  it out.   We need only point out that the Acquisition  Act  did not  originally provide for filing or hearing of  objections to  the proposed acquisition.  It was only by  the  Amending Act 38 of 1923 which came into force on January 1, 1924 that s. 5A was inserted in the Acquisition Act.  Up to that  time the view was that the wishes of the owners of the land  were wholly  irrelevant  but  after the insertion of  s.  5A  the position  has completely change and it cannot be  said  that the  owner’s  wishes are not relevant and that he  does  not need an opportunity to file his objections.  To take such  a view would render s. 5A otios.  If it has any purpose and if it has to be given its full effect the person interested  in the land proposed to be acquired must have an opportunity to submit  his  objections  and  that he can  do  only  if  the notification under s. 4(1) while mentioning the public  pur- pose  gives some definite indication or particulars  of  the said  purpose  which would enable the persons  concerned  to object  effectively if so desired.  In the absence  of  such specific  or  particular purpose being stated  the  objector cannot  file  any proper or cogent objections  under  s.  5A which  he has a right to do under that provision.  We  would accordingly   hold   that  owing  to   the   vagueness   and indefiniteness   of  the  public  purpose  stated   in   the notifications under s. 4(1) and in the absence of any  proof that  the appellants were either aware of or were shown  the scheme  or  the  Master  Plan  in  respect  of  the  planned development  of  the area in question  the  appellants  were wholly unable to object effectively and exercise their right under s. 5A of the Acquisition Act. For  the reasons given above these appeals must succeed  and are  hereby allowed.  The entire acquisition proceedings  in respect  of the lands of the appellants in all  the  appeals

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

are,  hereby  quashed.  In matters of this nature  we  would have  taken  due  notice  of  laches  on  the  part  of  the appellants  while  granting  the above  relief  but  we  are satisfied  that  so  far  as  the  present  appellants   are concerned  they  have not been guilty of  laches,  delay  or acquiescence at any stage.  The appellants shall be entitled to  costs in this Court.  C.M. Petition No. 6852 of 1971  is disposed of by observing that it will be open to the  partly to file a suit for damages, if any, if so desired. S.C.                          Appeals allowed. 985