Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9740 OF 2010 [Arising out of SLP [C] No. 24221/2005]

The Special Deputy Collector,  … Appellant Land Acquisition C.M.D.A.

Vs.

J. Sivaprakasam & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. An area of 4.89 acres of land (which includes 54 cents in Survey No.  

186/1 and 1.09 acres of land in Survey No. 186/2, in all 1.63 acres, which is  

the subject matter of this appeal) in Koyambedu Village, Chennai District  

was  notified  for  acquisition  for  further  implementation  of  Koyambedu  

Wholesale  Market  Complex,  under  preliminary  notification  dated

13.11.1998 issued under section 4(1) and final declaration dated 2.2.2000  

issued under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short). The  

preliminary notification was published in the T.N. Gazette dated 15.12.1998.  

It was also published in two daily Tamil newspapers – “Maduari Mani” and  

“Kadiravan” on 6.1.1999.   

3. The  said  lands  (Sy.  No.186/1  and  186/2)  belonged  to  one  V.T.  

Jayaraman and he was shown as the registered owner/pattadar of the said  

lands in the revenue records. He is stated to have died on 3.11.1978 leaving  

two sons and two daughters (respondents 1 to 4 herein) as his legal heirs. On  

the death of V.T. Jayaraman, the said lands bearing Sy. No.186/1 and 186/2  

were not mutated in the names of his legal heirs but continued to be in the  

name of the deceased V.T. Jayaraman in the revenue records. Respondents 1  

to 4 leased the said lands in favour of the eleventh respondent (a trust for  

running an educational institution) on 25.10.1987. Respondents 1 to 4 also  

sold  portions  of  the  said  lands to  respondents  5  to  10 who in  turn,  also  

granted  a  lease  of  their  portions  in  favour  of  eleventh  respondent.  Thus  

respondents 1 to 4 were not shown as the owners/occupiers of the said lands  

in the revenue/municipal records, nor were they in physical possession of the  

said  lands.  It  is  stated  that  the  eleventh  respondent  was  in  exclusive  

2

possession of the said lands at the time of issue of preliminary and final  

notifications and even thereafter.   

4. The respondents 1 to 11 challenged the acquisition of Sy. No.186/1  

and  186/2  under  preliminary  notification  dated  13.11.1998  and  final  

notification dated 2.2.2000 in a Writ Petition (W.P.No.7789/2000) filed on  

21.4.2000,  contending  that  the  acquisition  was  invalid  for  the  following  

reasons: (a) The preliminary notification and final notifications were issued  

showing the name of a dead person (V.T. Jayaraman) as the owner of the  

said lands. Respondents 1 to 4 who were the owners of the lands, were not  

issued any notice in regard to enquiry under section 5A of the Act thereby  

denying them opportunity to file objections and participate in the enquiry  

under section 5A of the Act. (b) The preliminary notification was published  

in  two  Tamil  Dailies  “Madurai  Mani”  and  “Kadiravan”  which  had  no  

circulation in the locality, thereby violating the provisions of section 4(1) of  

the  Act.  (c)  The  eleventh  respondent  was  serving  the  residents  of  

Koyembedu  and  surrounding  villages  by  using  the  lands  for  running  a  

school and college and therefore the said lands should be excluded from  

acquisition. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to  

11) admitted that the eleventh respondent as also respondents 5 to 10 had  

3

received a notice dated 9.6.1999 from the appellant calling upon them to  

appear in the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act; and that respondents 5 to  

11 on learning that the lands were notified under section 4(1) of the Act, had  

filed their objections dated 9.7.1999 against the acquisition proposal on the  

ground that a school was running in the said lands and that the lands were far  

away from the existing market complex.  

5. A learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Madras  High Court  by  order  dated  

10.4.2003  allowed  the  writ  petition  holding  that  publication  of  the  

notification under section 4(1) of the Act in the newspapers “Kadiravan”  

and “Madurai Mani” which had no circulation in the locality, did not fulfill  

the  mandatory  statutory  requirement  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act.  

Consequently, he quashed the preliminary notifications under Section 4(1)  

and the subsequent final declaration under Section 6 of the Act.  

6. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  appellant  and  the  State  filed  a  writ  appeal  

contending inter  alia  that  it  was not  sufficient  for  the  writ  petitioners  to  

allege that the newspapers had no circulation in the locality, but they ought  

to have substantiated the said claim, by production of relevant documents. It  

was further contended that section 4(1) of the Act did not require that the  

4

newspapers wherein the publication is made should have a wide circulation  

or be read by every person in the locality; and that it was sufficient if the  

newspapers were sold in the locality, that is, they had some circulation in the  

locality, and that one of them at least was in the regional language. The State  

Government and the appellant  did not  however choose to file before the  

High  Court  any  document  to  show  that  the  two  newspapers  had  any  

significant circulation. The writ appeal was dismissed by an appellate bench  

of the High Court by the impugned order dated 22.2.2005, holding that no  

material  had  been  placed  by  the  State  Government  or  the  appellant  to  

establish that the two newspapers in which the notification was published  

had a reasonably wide circulation in Chennai. The appellate bench of the  

High  Court  rejected  the  contention  that  even  if  the  regional  language  

newspapers  in  which  preliminary  notification  was  published  had  some  

circulation in the locality, it would meet the requirements of section 4(1) of  

the Act and held that the purpose of requiring circulation in the locality is to  

enable the concerned landowners to know about the said notification under  

section 4(1) of the Act and file their objections under section 5A of the Act  

or take other legal steps as they deem fit, or prepare to permit survey and  

marking  by  the  officials;  and  therefore  the  newspapers  in  which  the  

notification under section 4(1) of the Act is published must be newspapers  

5

having  reasonably  wide  circulation  in  the  locality.  The  appellate  bench  

observed  that  there  were  many  fake  newspapers  which  had  little  or  no  

circulation  which  existed  only  for  securing  such  advertisements,  and  

publication  in  such  newspapers  will  not  amount  to  compliance  with  the  

mandatory  requirements  relating  to  publication  ‘in  two daily  newspapers  

circulating in the locality’  under section 4(1)  of the Act even if  the said  

newspapers were registered newspapers having some nominal circulation.  

The Appellate Bench of the High Court held that the appellants had failed to  

establish that “Kadiravan” and “Madurai Mani” had sufficient circulation in  

the City of Chennai, where the acquired lands were situated and therefore  

the publication of the preliminary notification in the said newspapers did not  

comply with the mandatory requirements of notification under section 4(1)  

of the Act. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

Appellant’s contentions

7. The  appellant  contended  that  V.T.  Jayaraman  was  shown  as  the  

registered owner of the land in the revenue records and respondents 1 to 4  

had not got their names entered as owners/holders of the said land on his  

death; and that therefore they were not entitled to notice and the question of  

6

showing their names in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act did not  

arise.  It was submitted that the purpose of a preliminary notification was to  

notify   the  owners/holders/occupants/persons  interested  in  the  proposed  

acquisition; that the eleventh respondent who was admittedly in possession  

of the said lands and respondents 5 to 10 who were the owners of portions of  

the  said  lands  were  aware  of  the  said  acquisition  notifications  and  had  

participated  in  the  enquiry  under  Section  5A  of  the  Act  by  filing  their  

objections; and therefore respondents 5 to 11 also could not challenge the  

acquisition on the ground that they were prejudiced for want of notice. The  

appellant submits that in view of the above, the question whether the two  

newspapers in which the notification was published had wide circulation or  

not, is a non-issue.

8. The appellant produced before this Court, for the first time, a letter  

dated  31.3.2004  addressed  by  the  Director  of  Information  &  Public  

Relations  to  the  Special  Government  Pleader,  Madras,  informing  that  

“Madurai Mani” had a circulation of 28475 in various parts of Madras area  

during 1998 to 2000 (that is an average circulation of 6200, 4657 and 5200  

for Central Madras, South Madras and North Madras and 3100, 3450, 3550  

and 2300 for Tambaram, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur);  and  

7

that “Kadhiravan” had a circulation of 42,000 to 48,000 copies per day in  

and around Madras City but it had stopped publication on 14.11.2001. It was  

submitted that these published figures are in public domain and therefore the  

said  information,  though not  produced  before  the  High Court,  should  be  

permitted to be placed on record in the interest of justice.   

9. The appellant submitted that the publication of the notification under  

Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette and publication of a public  

notice of the substance of the said notification at convenient places in the  

said locality was not disputed; and that the challenge by the respondents is  

only  on  the  ground  that  the  third  requirement  of  the  section,  that  the  

notification shall be published in “two daily newspapers circulating in that  

locality” was not complied with.  It is pointed out that the section does not  

say that the newspapers should have a substantial circulation nor uses the  

prefix  ‘widely’  before  the  word  ‘circulating’;  and in  the  absence  of  any  

definition of the word ‘circulating’ or prescription of any minimum figures  

relating  to  circulation,  a  newspaper  which  was  regularly  sold  or  was  

available for purchase in a locality,  should be deemed to be a newspaper  

circulating  in  that  locality.  It  is  contended  that  the  fact  that  the  two  

newspapers in which the notification was published, had some ‘circulation’  

8

in  the  locality  was  not  denied  by  respondents  and the  contention  of  the  

respondents  that  the  newspapers  in  question  did  not  have  ‘wide’  or  

‘sufficient’ circulation, was not a requirement specified in the section.  

Respondents’ contentions

10. The  respondents  contended  that  the  failure  to  show the  names  of  

respondents 1 to 4 who were the owners of the land and showing the name  

of their  deceased father  V.T.  Jayaraman as  the owner  in  the  preliminary  

notification  vitiated  the  acquisition  proceedings  relating  to  Sy.No.186/1  

and 186/2.  

11. Respondents submitted that they had made a specific averment in their  

writ petition in regard to the lack of circulation of the two newspapers as  

follows:  “The  Notification  was  alleged  to  have  been  published  in  

“Kadiravan” and “Madurai Mani” newspapers, which were not at all having  

any circulation in the area”.  It  is  pointed out  that  the appellant  (Chennai  

Metropolitan Development Authority) which was the second respondent in  

the writ petition, did not file any counter before the High Court; and only the  

State  Government  filed  a  counter  before  the  High Court  where  the  said  

averment was not traversed or denied. It was therefore contended that the  

9

appellant is deemed to have admitted the said allegation in the writ petition  

that the two newspapers in which the preliminary notification was published,  

did not have any circulation in the locality.  

12. The respondents have also produced the circulation figures regarding  

various  Tamil  newspapers,  published  by  the  Information  and  Tourism  

department, to show the circulations of the two newspapers in the correct  

perspective.  The  figures  are  :  Dinabhoomi:72676;  Dinakaran:1,23,000;  

Dinamalar:85,980;  Dinamani:90,000;  Daily  Thanthi:2,10,204;  Madurai   

Mani:28,465  Makkal  Kural:63,000;  Malai  Malar:65,205;  and  Malai  

Murasu:60,000.  The said document  gives  the  circulation  figures  of  some  

other  tamil  newspapers  having  smaller  circulations  and  confirmed  that  

‘Kadiravan’ was closed in November, 2001. On these comparative figures, it  

was contended by respondents that it could not be said that the two Tamil  

language  newspapers  ‘Madurai Mani’ and  ‘Kadiravan’ had  ‘wide’  

circulation  in  Chennai  and  therefore  the  said  newspapers  cannot  be  

described as daily newspapers “circulating” in that locality.  

10

Questions for consideration.

13. On the contentions raised, two questions arise for our consideration:  

(i) Whether  the  finding  of  the  High  Court  that  the  two  regional  language newspapers in which the Notification under section 4(1)  was  published  did  not  have  reasonably  wide  circulation  in  the  locality and therefore there is non-compliance with the provisions  of section 4(1), calls for interference?  

(ii) Whether the acquisition is invalid?

Re: Question (i) : Publication in newspapers circulating in the locality

14. Sub-section  4(1)  of  the  Act  relates  to  publication  of  preliminary  

notification and relevant portion thereof is extracted below:

“4.  Publication  of  preliminary  notification  and  powers  of  officers  thereupon.—(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that  land in any locality  is  needed or is  likely to be needed for any public  purpose or for a company a notification to that effect shall be published in  the  Official  Gazette  and  in  two  daily  newspapers  circulating  in  that  locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the  Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to  be given at convenient places in the said locality ..…”

Section 4(1) of the Act requires publication of the preliminary notification  

by three modes : (i) publication in the official gazette; (ii) publication in two  

daily newspapers circulating in the locality, at least one of which being in  

the regional language;  and (iii)  causing public  notice of  the substance of  

such preliminary notification to be given at convenient places in the locality.  

11

15. The  controversy  in  this  case  relates  to  the  second  mode,  that  is  

publication  in  “two  daily newspapers  circulating  in  that  locality”.  The  

provision  does  not  use  the  words  “two  daily  newspapers  having  a  wide  

circulation in the locality”. In the absence of any definition or explanation  

in the Statute, the question is as to how should the words ‘circulating in that   

locality’ be  understood?  Do  they  refer  to  newspapers  having  the  widest  

circulation  in  the  locality?  Or  do  they  refer  to  newspapers  which  are  

regularly sold or circulated in the locality, irrespective of numbers, even if  

their  circulation  figures  are  very  modest?  If  there  are  nine  newspapers  

circulating in the locality, having a market share of 25%, 20%, 15%, 12%,  

10%, 8%, 5%, 3% and 2% of the total daily sales of regional newspapers in  

the locality, whether all of them can be termed as ‘newspapers circulating in  

the  locality’  or  whether  only  newspapers  with  a  particular  minimum  

percentage can be described as ‘newspapers circulating in the locality’. Can  

it  be  said  that  the  newspapers  having  5%,  3% and 2% of  total  sales  of  

newspapers, are not newspapers circulating in the locality? Can it be said  

that only the newspapers having the maximum market share of 25% or 20%  

or 15% of the total sales in the locality, could be described as newspapers  

circulating  in  the  locality?  Whether  the  total  circulation  figures  of  the  

12

newspaper  are  relevant  or  whether  the  circulation  figures  in  the  locality  

alone are relevant?  From a newspaper’s point of view, if its total circulation  

is 40,000 and out of it circulation figure for Chennai is 21,000, it can very  

well say that it’s major circulation is in Chennai. But from the reader’s point  

of view, if  the total  number of regional  newspapers sold in Chennai is a  

million, a newspaper having a circulation of 21,000 (which is around 2%)  

may not  be considered to be a newspaper  with a wide circulation in the  

locality.  Which  perspective  should  be  preferred?  If  section  4(1)  is  to  be  

interpreted as requiring publication in two newspapers having  reasonably  

wide circulation, as held by the High Court, what should be the guidelines to  

determine ‘reasonably wide circulation’? Where should the line be drawn  

and whether any line should be drawn are questions that may arise, if we  

read  the  words  ‘newspapers  circulating  in  that  locality’  as  ‘newspapers  

having wide circulation in that locality’.  

16. The purpose of publication of the notification is two fold: First is to  

ensure  that  adequate  publicity  is  given  so  that  land  owners  and persons  

interested will have an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5A  

of  the  Act.  Second  is  to  put  the  land  owners/occupants  on  notice  that  

government officers will be entering upon the property for carrying on the  

13

activities  enumerated  in  section  4(2)  of  the  Act.  Section  4(1),  before  its  

amendment  in  1984,  required  publication  of  the  preliminary  notification  

only  in  the  official  gazette  and  public  notice,  of  the  substance  of  the  

notification  at  convenient  places  in  the  locality.  This  Court,  in  Madhya  

Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd Shafi & Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 168 explained  

the object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act thus:

“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  he  needed  by  the  Government  for  the  "public  purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorizes 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-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.”

17. By  Amendment  Act  68  of  1984,  section  4(1)  was  amended  

introducing  the  additional  requirement  relating  to  publication  of  the  

notification in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality. The purpose  

of requiring such newspaper publication is to give as wide a publicity to the  

14

notification as possible, as the State Gazettes do not have a wide circulation  

and causing public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient  

places  in  the  locality  would  give  notice  only  in  specific  pockets  in  the  

locality. Legislature therefore provided for publication in two newspapers  

(of which at least one being in the regional language) to have a wider reach.  

Having regard to the object and purpose of the provision, it is evident that  

publication  should  be  in  newspapers  which  have  a  reasonably  good  

circulation  in  the  locality.  If  the  publication  is  to  be  made  in  obscure  

newspapers having only token or insignificant circulation, either to cut the  

cost  of  publication  or  by way of  political  or  official  patronage,  that  will  

defeat the very purpose of providing for publication in newspapers.  

18. On  the  other  hand,  if  the  words  ‘newspapers  circulating  in  that  

locality’  are  to  be  interpreted  in  a  purely  literal  and  normal  sense,  they  

would mean newspapers having a regular and steady circulation among the  

general public in the locality, irrespective of the number. In that sense even a  

newspaper having 2% to 3% market share out of the total circulation figures  

for  regional  newspapers  sold  in  the  locality,  can  be  considered  as  a  

newspaper “circulating in the locality”. Therefore, where there is compliance  

with  the  requirement  relating  to  publication  in  two  daily  newspapers  

15

circulating  in  that  locality  (one  which  at  least  should  be  in  the  regional  

language) in a technical or literal sense, but it is found that those newspapers  

have only a circulation share of 2% to 3% of the total number of newspaper  

sold in the locality, it  may not be possible to mechanically invalidate the  

entire acquisition, on the ground that the two regional newspapers in which  

the notification was published were not “circulating in that locality”.  

19. We have held that the object and purpose of the amended section 4(1)  

of the Act is to provide for publication of the preliminary notification in two  

daily newspapers having reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that  

people  (persons  interested)  in  that  locality  may  become  aware  of  the  

proposals  for  acquisition.  We  have  also  held  that  publications  in  two  

newspapers having regular and steady circulation, but having a market share  

of only 2% to 3% of the total newspapers can not invalidate the acquisition  

proceedings automatically, on the ground that such publication violates the  

requirement of section 4(1) relating to newspaper publication. As the said  

two  findings  are  slightly  contradictory,  it  is  necessary  to  harmonize  the  

consequences.  

16

20. This  leads  us  next  to  the  consequences  of  publication  of  the  

notification  in  two  newspapers  having  reasonably  wide  circulation  and  

consequences of bonafide publication of the notification in two newspapers  

which do not have a wide circulation in the locality.

20.1) If  there  is  failure  to  publish  in  two  daily  newspapers  or  if  the  

publication  is  in  two  newspapers  that  have  no  circulation at  all  in  the  

locality, without anything more, the notification under section 4(1) of the  

Act and the consequential acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the  

ground of non-compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the  

Act.

20.2)  If  the  two newspapers  carrying the  publication  of  the  notification  

have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, (apart from the publication  

of the notification in the Gazette and causing public notice of the substance  

of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality), then the  

requirements of section 4(1) are complied with and all persons concerned in  

the locality shall  be deemed to have notice of the notification.   (For this  

purpose,  the publication need not be in newspapers having the widest  or  

largest  circulation,  but  it  is  sufficient  if  the  publication is  in  newspapers  

17

having reasonably wide circulation).  In that event, neither the notification  

under section 4(1), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be  

open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act.  

20.3) If  the  newspapers  in  which  the  notification  is  published  were  

circulating in the locality, but did not have a reasonably wide circulation in  

the  locality,  then  neither  the  notification  under  section  4(1)  nor  the  

consequential acquisition proceedings, will become vitiated automatically. If  

the person aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers did  

not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also asserts that as a  

consequence, he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition that was  

provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the absence of evidence to the  

contrary,  the acquisition to the extent  of  the land of such person will  be  

vitiated.  But  if  such  assertion   is  rebutted  by  the  acquiring  authority  by  

placing evidence to show that  the person concerned had in fact notice (as  

for example where he participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the  

Act), the acquisition will not be vitiated on the ground of violation of section  

4A of the Act.  

18

20.4) If the person challenging the acquisition is able to establish that the  

notifications were deliberately and with malafides, published in newspapers  

having negligible circulation, to avoid notice to the persons concerned, then  

section 4(1) will be violated.  

21. The acquiring authority need not prove actual notice of the proposal to  

acquire  under  section  4(1)  of  the  Act,  to  the  person  challenging  the  

acquisition.  As  the  purpose  of  publication  of  public  notice  provided  in  

section 4(1) of the Act is to give notice of the proposal of acquisition to the  

persons  concerned,  such notice  can also be by way of  implied notice  or  

constructive  notice.   For  this  purpose,  we  may  refer  to  the  difference  

between actual, implied and constructive notices.

21.1) When notice is directly served upon a party in a formal manner or  

when it is received personally by him, there is actual notice.  

21.2) If from the facts it can be inferred that a party knew about the subject  

matter of the notice, knowledge is imputed by implied notice. For example,  

if the purpose of the notice is to require a party to appear before an authority  

on a particular date, even though such a notice is not personally served on  

him, if the person appears before the authority on that date or participates in  

19

the subsequent  proceedings,  then the person can be said to have implied  

notice.  

21.3) Notice arising by presumption of law from the existence of certain  

specified  facts  and  circumstances  is  constructive  or  deemed  notice.  For  

example,  any person purchasing or obtaining a transfer  of an immovable  

property  is  deemed  to  have  notice  of  all  transactions  relating  to  such  

property effected by registered instruments till  the date of his acquisition.  

Or, where the statute provides for publication of the notification relating to a  

proposed acquisition of lands in the Gazette and newspapers and by causing  

public notice of the substance of the notification at convenient places in the  

locality, but does not provide for actual direct notice, then such provision  

provides for constructive notice; and on fulfillment of those requirements, all  

persons interested in the lands proposed for acquisition are   deemed  to  

have notice of the proposal regarding acquisition.  

Re : Question (ii) : Validity of the acquisition

22. The copy of the communication dated 31.3.2004 sent by the Director  

of  Information  and Tourism (Advertisement)  Department  in  Tamil  Nadu  

shows that between 1998 to 2000 "Madurai Mani" had a circulation of 6200,  

20

4675, 5200 and 3100 in Central Madras, South Madras, North Madras and  

Tambaram areas and "Kadiravan" had a circulation of 42,000 to 48,000 in  

Chennai area. On the other hand the material produced by the respondents  

show that the total circulation of regional newspapers in Chennai was around  

a million, that several regional newspapers had circulations varying between  

80,000  to  2,00,000  in  Chennai,  and  the  Madurai  Mani with  a  Chennai  

circulation of 28465, had a market share of 3% out of the total circulation of  

regional newspapers. ‘Kadiravan’ also apparently had a market share of 4%  

before  its  closure.  The  two  newspapers  were  not  therefore  newspapers  

having no circulation in the locality. We however agree, having regard to the  

circulation figures, with the finding of the High Court that the newspapers  

did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality.  

23. As both  Madurai Mani and  Kadiravan were sold and circulated in  

Chennai and as a good chunk of their total circulations was in Chennai, it  

may not  be possible to hold that  the said newspapers were not  ‘regional  

daily  newspapers  circulating  in  the  locality’.  Nor  will  it  be  possible  to  

invalidate the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the said  

two newspapers did not  fulfill  requirement of publication in ‘newspapers  

circulating in that  locality’.  But if  the respondents  are able to assert  and  

21

demonstrate  that  as  a  consequence,  they  were  denied  the  opportunity  of  

participating  in  the  enquiry  under  Section  5A,  or  show  any  other  

disadvantage, they may be able to achieve the object of showing that the  

acquisition proceedings were vitiated in so far as their lands were concerned.

24. In  this  case  respondents  1  to  11  have  challenged  the  acquisition.  

Respondents  5  to  11  specifically  admitted  that  they  received  a  notice  

dated 9.6.1999 from the appellant herein calling upon them to appear before  

him  in  the  Section  5A  enquiry  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act.  

Respondents 5    to 11 further admitted that they enquired and found that the  

lands were notified and immediately thereafter filed their objections to the  

acquisition proposals.  Therefore,  the publication of the notification under  

section  4(1)  of  the  Act,  in  two  newspapers  which  did  not  have  wide  

circulation in the locality, did not affect respondents 5 to 11  in any manner  

as they had notice of the proposals for acquisition and participated in the  

enquiry under    section 5A of the Act.

25. We may now deal with the grievance of respondents 1 to 4. There is  

nothing to show that they had any subsisting interest in the two lands, when  

the preliminary notification was issued. When their father died they did not  

22

choose to get their names entered in the revenue records. The death of their  

father was in 1978 and the preliminary notification was issued in the year  

1998 and for two decades they took no steps to get the lands mutated in their  

names. It is stated in the writ petition that they had let out the entire property  

to  eleventh  respondent  and  had  sold  portions  of  the  property  to  

respondents 5 to 10. But they have not disclosed the extents of the portions  

that were sold and which portions, if at all any, were retained by them. They  

admit that the purchasers from them (respondents 5 to 10) and their tenant  

(respondent    No. 11) had notice. Therefore, in so far as respondents 1 to 4  

are concerned, whether the notification was published in newspapers having  

wide circulation or not would make no difference and they cannot complain  

about  the  absence  of  publication  or  about  defective  publication  of  

notification under Section 4(1) in the newspapers. Even if the publication  

had been in two newspapers having wider circulation, their names would not  

have figured therein.

26. It is significant to note that there is no averment in the writ petition  

that respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition. It is evident  

that  they  were  aware  of  the  notification.  It  is  also  inconceivable  that  

respondents 5 to 11 who knew about the proposed acquisition would not  

23

have informed respondents 1 to 4 about the proposed acquisition. Be that as  

it  may.  Therefore  even  if  the  publication  in  two  regional  language  

newspapers is considered to be not in compliance with the requirements of  

section 4(1), it cannot affect the validity of the preliminary notification or  

the consequential proceedings in regard to Sy. Nos.186/1 and 186/2.  

27. No  other  ground  is  urged  to  interfere  with  the  acquisition.  The  

acquisition was for an urgent public purpose that is for implementation of  

further stages of Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex. The objections on  

behalf of the holders of the land had been considered. No prejudice has been  

caused on account of the publication of the notification in two newspapers  

having limited circulation in the locality.

Conclusion

28. To  avoid  such  unnecessary  controversies  and  litigation,  acquiring  

authorities should ensure that the notification under section 4(1) of the Act is  

published in the newspapers having reasonable wide circulation.  

29. In view of the above, we are of the view that the acquisition has to be  

upheld. Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment  

of the division bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned  

24

Single Judge. We uphold the acquisition and dismiss the writ petition filed  

by the respondents. Our observations in para 25 above regarding absence of  

proof of title of respondents 1 to 4  being in the context of the validity of  

acquisition, will not come in the way of their establishing any claim for their  

share of compensation, if any, in the acquired lands in accordance with law.  

……………………………J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ……………………………J. November 18, 2010. (H L Gokhale)             

25