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

PETITIONER: NUTAKKI SESHARATANAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUB-COLLECTOR,  LAND  ACQUISITION  VIJAYAWADA  AND  ORS.   ’

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/10/1991

BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. SAHAI, R.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  131            1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 115  1992 SCC  (1) 114        JT 1991 (4)   274  1991 SCALE  (2)921

ACT:     Land  Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4(1)---(As  amended by Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1983).     Land  Acquisition---Notification--Publication  of   sub- stance  of  Notification  within 40 days from  the  date  of Notification   is  mandatary---Noncompliance  vitiates   the acquisition.     Acquisition  proceedings--Consent given for  acquisition of land--Nature and effect of--Held consent amounts to offer in terms of the Contract Act--Can be withdrawn before it  is accepted.

HEADNOTE:     Proceedings  for  acquisition of appellant’s  land  were initiated. and a Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894 was published in the  Government  Ga- zette. The substance of the said Notification was  published in  the  locality  long after 40 days within  which  it  was required  to be published under Section 4(1) of 1894  Act’as amended  by the Andhra pradesh(Amendment) Act, 1983.  During the  course of enquiry regarding the fixation  of  compensa- tion,  the  appellant consented to his land  being  acquired provided  he was given compensation in a lump-sum.  However, before any award was made he withdrew his consent and  filed a  petition  challenging  the validity  of  the  acquisition proceedings. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed  his petition  by holding that since he gave his consent  to  the acquisition  of land he could not challenge the  acquisition proceedings. On appeal the decision of the Single Judge  was confirmed  by the Division Bench of the High Court.  Against the  decision  of the Division Bench of the High  Court,  an appeal was filed in this Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  1.  The Single Judge and the Division  Bench  of the.  High  Court were clearly in error  in  dismissing  the respective writ petition and the appeal filed by the  appel- lant  respectively. The appellant’s statement- that  he  was willing  to accept the acquisition provided a lump-sum  com- pensation was awarded to him -- amounted 115 116

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

in  law  to no more than an offer in terms of  the  Contract ACt. The said offer was never accepted by the Land  Acquisi- tion  Officer to whom it was made. Leave alone,  making  the award of lump-sum compensation, no award at all was made  by the said officer awarding compensation to the appellant till the  aforesaid-offer was withdrawn by the appellant or  even till the writ petition was filed. Till the offer was accept- ed there was no contract between the parties and the  appel- lant  was entitled to withdraw his offer. There was  nothing inequitable  or  improper in withdrawing the offer,  as  the appellant was in no way bound to keep the offer open indefi- nitely. 1117 G-H, 118-A]     2.   The acquisition of the appellant’s land is  bad  in law  because the substance of the Notification was not  pub- lished in the locality within forty days of the  publication of  the  Notification in the Government Gazette.  The  time- limit of forty days for such publication in the locality has been  made  mandatory  by section 4(1) of the  1894  Act  as amended  by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act,  1983.  Such non-compliance renders acquisition bad in law. [118-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 1986.     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 577 of 1985. B. Kanta Rao for the Appellant. K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     KANIA,  J. This is an appeal by Special Leave  from  the judgment  of  a Division Bench of the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court  dismissing  the Writ Appeal No.577 of 1985  filed  in that Court. Very  few facts are necessary for the disposal of  this  ap- peal.     The appellant is the owner of a plot comprising  roughly 2 acres of land in Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada  Taluk, in the Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra  Pradesh sought to acquire about 1 acre and 89  cents out of the aforesaid land for a public propose. A  Notifica- tion  under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was published in the Government 117 Gazette  on  February  9, 1976. The substance  of  the  said notification  was published in the locality where  the  land proposed to be acquired is situated, on April 2, 1978,  long after the period of 40 days within which it was required  to be  published as per the provisions of section 4(1)  of  the said  Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment)  Act, 1983, (Act 9 of 1983). Enquiry under section 5A of the  said Act  was dispensed with invoking the urgency clause  as  per section 17(4) of the said Act. Notification under section  6 was  published  on the same day as the  publication  of  the notification under section 4(1) of the said Act. An  inquiry was  conducted regarding the fixation of compensation to  be awarded  to  the appellant and others whose lands  were  ac- quired  under the said notification. It appears that  during the  course of the said inquiry the appellant stated to  the Land  Acquisition Officer concerned that he was  willing  to agree  to  the  land being acquired provided  he  was  given compensation in a lump-sum. Probably the reason was that  if the compensation was awarded in a lump-

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

sum  without  delay, the appellant might have been  able  to purchase  some  other  land, as his holding  was  under  the ceiling  limit. The aforesaid facts have been found  by  the Trial  Court and accepted by the High Court. On November  9, 1979, before any award was made, the consent to the acquisi- tion of the land given by the appellant, as aforestated, was withdrawn by him and on May 14, 1981, the appellant filed  a writ petition in the High Court questioning the validity  of the  land acquisition proceedings. The learned Single  Judge before  whom the said writ petition along with another  writ petition  came  up for hearing held that the  appellant  had agreed  to the acquisition of the said land on  compensation being paid as aforestated, and hence it was not open to  the appellant  to challenge the validity of the  said  notifica- tions  issued under section 4(1) and section 6 of  the  said Act.  It  was held by him that the withdrawal  of  the  said representation  or consent by the appellant did not  in  any manner  assist  him. The learned Judge  dismissed  the  writ petition  filed  by  the appellant without  going  into  the merits  of  the aforesaid petition on the  aforesaid  basis. This  judgment was upheld by the Division Bench of the  High Court  which dismissed the aforesaid writ appeal. It is  the correctness of these decisions which is impugned before us.      In our view, the learned Single Judge and the  Division Bench  of  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh were,  with  re- spect,  clearly in error in dismissing the  respective  writ petition and the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had stated that he was willing to  accept the acquisition provided a lump-sum compensation was awarded to him. The statement of the appellant amounted in law to no more  than an offer in terms of the Contract Act.  The  said offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer  to whom it was made. Leave alone, making 118 the award of lump-sum compensation, no award at all was made by  the said officer awarding compensation to the  appellant till  November 9, 1979, when the aforesaid offer  was  with- drawn  by the appellant or even till the writ  petition  was filed.  Till  the offer was accepted there was  no  contract between the parties and the appellant was entitled to  with- draw his offer. There was nothing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer, as the appellant was in no way  bound to  keep  the offer open indefinitely.  The  writ  petition, therefore, ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of the appellant having made a statement or consented as afore- stated before the Land Acquisition Officer.     On  the merits, it is clear that the acquisition of  the land is bad in law because the substance of the notification under  section 40) of the said Act was not published in  the locality within forty days of the publication of the notifi- cation  in the Government Gazette. The time-limit  of  forty days  for  such publication in the locality  has  been  made mandatory by section 4(1) of the said Act as amended by  the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act. It is well-settled that such non-compliance renders acquisition bad in law.     In the result, the appeal succeeds and Rule in the  writ petition is made absolute. It is declared that the  acquisi- tion  of the aforesaid land of the appellant is bad in  law. If the possession has been taken, the same must be  returned to the appellant. The appeal is allowed as aforestated with costs throughout. T.N.A.                                                Appeal Allowed. 119

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