http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NARINDRAJIT SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/10/1972

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1973 AIR  552            1973 SCR  (2) 698  1973 SCC  (1) 157  CITATOR INFO :  E          1984 SC1721  (1,5,6)

ACT: Land  Acquisition  Act, 1894, sections 4(1)  and  (2)   5-A, 17(4)--Collector  not causing public notice of substance  of notification  to be given in  locality--Non-compliance  with section 4(1)--Section 4(1) held mandatory and to be read  as integrated   provision   containing   two    conditions--Not controlled by Section 17(4).

HEADNOTE: A  notification  was  issued under section  4  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act on October 15, 1960 for acquisition of  the land  in  dispute.   The Collector did  ’not.  cause  Public notice of the substance of the notification to be  announced at  convenient places in the locality where the land  sought to  be acquired was situate, as required by the second  part of  section  4(1).   Under  section 17(4)  of  the  Act  the provisions  of section 5A were dispensed with.   On  October 28,  1960 the notification under section 6 was issued.   The appellant was directed to be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under Sec. 9 on December 4, 1960.   On December  5, 1960 the appellant filed a petition under  Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceed- ings.   The petition was dismissed by a single Judge of  the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal  by the Division Bench. Allowing the appeals, HELD  : (i) The law as settled by this Court is that such  a notice  under second part of section 4(1) is  mandatory  and unless   that  notice  is  given  in  accordance  with   the provisions   contained   therein  the   entire   acquisition proceedings are vitiated.  Under section 4(2) such a  notice is  necessary  condition for the exercise of  the  power  of entry.   Non-compliance with that condition makes the  entry unlawful.   The  purpose  behind  such  a  notice  is   that interested  persons  should  know that  the  land  is  being acquired  so as to prefer any objections under s. 5-A  which confers a valuable right., [699G] Khub  Chand  and Others v. The State of Rajasthan  and  Ors. [1967]  1  S.C.R.  120 and State of Mysore  v.  Abdul  Razak Sahib, C.A. 2361 of 1968 dt.  August 11, 1972 referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

(ii)The construction of S.4(1) cannot be made to depend upon any action or direction which the State Govt. may choose  to make under S. 17(4) of the principal Act.  S. 4(1) has to be read   as  an  integrated  provision  which   contains   two conditions  both  being mandatory.,  Requirement  of  public notice  in  the locality cannot be rendered  directly  by  a notification  under S. 17(4) dispensing with  hearing  under Sec. 5A. [700H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1192 and 1193 of 1967. Appeal  by  special leave from the order dated  January  13, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, in L.P.A. No. 6 of 1969. 699 B.   Sen and G. D. Gupta, for the appellant. V.   C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER, J.  These two appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court 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 acquisition of the land in dispute.  Under  s.  17 (4) of the Act the provisions of s. 5A 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  acqui- sition 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, and  the               Collector  shall  cause public notice  of  the               substance 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 convenient  places in the 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 power  of entry noncompliance with that condition makes  the entry unlawful.  In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak  Sahib(2) no  notices as required by s. 4(1)of the Act were  published in the locality till after the lapse of about 10 weeks.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

question for consideration’ (1) [1967] 1 S. C. R. 120. (2) C. A. 2361 of 1968 dt. August 11. 1972. 700 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 concerned 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. as 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 issued.  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. 5A.  It lays down in unequivocal  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 authorized 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(1)  is issued  the direction should be made simultaneously  if  the State Government so desires.  Such an order or direction can be made even at a later stage.  The effect of the  direction made under s. 17(4) is that a declaration can be made  under s.  6  in  respect  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 appropriate government may not  consider it  necessary to take action under s.  17(4)  simultaneously with  the  notification under s. 4(1) and it may  choose  to invoke  its provisions only at a later stage in view of  any urgency that may crop 701 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

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

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 allowed. 702