http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/02/1966

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N. MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1593            1966 SCR  (3) 557  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1968 SC1138  (28,44,45,46,51,52,54,57)  R          1970 SC1576  (7)  RF         1973 SC1150  (2)  RF         1975 SC1699  (3)  R          1975 SC1767  (4)  E          1976 SC 417  (27)  F          1977 SC 594  (5,6)  E          1980 SC 367  (5,6,12)  F          1985 SC1622  (15)  D          1988 SC1615  (7)  R          1989 SC  49  (26)  RF         1991 SC1117  (9)

ACT: Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), ss. 4, 5-A, 6, 17, 48  and 49-Notification under s. 4-If could be followed by more than one notification under s. 6.,

HEADNOTE: After the issue of a notification under a. 4(1) of the  Land Acquisition  Act, 1894, by which it was declared that  lands in  certain villages were likely to be needed for  a  public purpose, a number of notifications, in respect of  different items  of land specified in the notification under s.  4(1), were  successively  issued under s. 6. The validity  of  the last  of them was challenged by the respondents, by  a  writ petition  in  the  High Court The  High  Court  allowed  the petition holding that a notification under a. 4(1) could  be followed only by one notification under. s. 6, and therefore it  was  not  open to the  Government  to  issue  successive notifications  with  respect  to  different  parts  of  land comprised in one notification under s. 4. In appeal to this Court, by the State,  HELD:    The High Court was right in holding that there can be  no successive notifications under s. 6 with  respect  to land  in a locality specified  in one notification under  a. 4(1). [572 C-D] Per  Sarkar,  J.  Sections  4, 5-A and 6  of  the  Act  read together  indicates that the Act contemplates only a  single declaration under s. 6 in respect of a notification under s. 4.  There  is nothing in ss. 17 and 49(2) (3) to lead  to  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

contrary view. There  is nothing in the Act to support the view that it  is only a withdrawal under s. 48 that puts a notification under a. 4 completely out of the way. [560 G; 561 C; 561 E] Per  Wanchoo and Mudholkar, JJ.  Sections 4, 5-A and  6  are integrally connected and without the notifications under as. 4 and 6 no acquisition can take place, because, they are the basis  of  all proceedings which follow.   The  notification under s. 4(1) specifies the locality in which the land is to be acquired and under s. 4(2) survey is made to decide  what particular   land   in  the  locality   specified   in   the notification  is  to be acquired.  Another  purpose  of  the notification under a. 4(1) is to give opportunity to persons owning land in the locality to make objections under s. 5-A. Section  5-A specifically provides that the Collector  shall hear  all objections made before him and then make only  one report  to the Government containing his recommendations  on the  objections.   When  such a report is  received  by  the Government, it must give a decision on all the objections at one  stage and decide once for all what particular land  out of the locality notified under s. 4(1) it wishes to  acquire and then issue a declaration under s. 6. At the stage of  s. 4,  the land is not particularised but only the locality  is mentioned; at the stage of a. 6 the land in the locality  is particularised  and  thereafter, the notification  under  s. 4(1)  having  served  its  purpose  exhausts  itself.    The sequence  of events from a notification of the intention  to acquire  under s. 4 to the declaration under a. 6, leads  to the   conclusion  that  once  a  declaration  under   s.   6 particularising  the  area  is issued,  the  remaining  non- particularised area in the noti- Sup.C.I./66-4 558 fication  under s. 4(1) stands automatically released.   The intention of the legislature was that one notification under s.  4(1)  should  be  followed  by  survey  under  s.  4(2), objections   under  s.  5-A  heard,  and   thereafter,   one declaration  under s. 6 issued.  If the Government  requires more  land in that locality, there is nothing to prevent  it from  issuing  another notification under s. 4(i)  making  a further  survey  if necessary, hearing objections  and  then making  another  declaration under s. 6,  whereas  there  is likely to be prejudice to the owner of the land if there  is great  delay between the notifications under s. 4(1) and  s. 6. Even if it were possible to issue two notifications under s.  6  in  the  special circumstances  arising  out  of  the application of s. 17 (4), all that is possible is, to  issue one notification relating to land to which s. 17(1)  applies and another notification relating to land to which s.  17(1) cannot apply, and that is because of the special  provisions contained  in s. 17(1) and s. 17(4) and not because  of  the provisions of ss. 4, 5-A and 6. Section 48(1) only confers a special  power on Government of withdrawal from  acquisition without  canceling  the  notifications under ss.  4  and  6, provided, possession of the land covered by the notification under  s. 6 was not taken.  It cannot be said that the  only way in which the notification under s. 4(1) can corn.- to an end  is by withdrawal under s. 48(1) and that unless  action is  taken under that section the notification under s.  4(1) would remain alive Section 49(2) and (3) also provide for  a special  case.  The order of the Government under s.  49(2), ordering  the  acquisition of the whole of  the  land,  even though  under  s.  6 only part of the  land  may  have  been declared,  may  be taken to serve the purpose of  the  noti- fication  under s. 4(1) in such a special case; but it  does

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

not  follow that successive notifications under s. 6 can  be issued with respect to land in the locality specified in the notification  under s. 4(1). [566 D-567 E; 567 F, H; 569  B, C; 570 A-D, C; 571 F, G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1018  of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 21,  1962, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.  Petition No.  275 of 1961. C.   K.  Daphtary, Attorney-General, M.  Adhikari,  Advocate General,  Madhya Pradesh, H. L. Khaskalam and I. N.  Shroff, for the appellants. S.   V.  Gupte, Solicitor-General and J. B. Dadachanji,  for the respondents. S. N. Kacker and J. P. Goyal, for the intervener. SARKAR,  J. delivered a separate opinion.  The  Judgment  of WANCHOO and MUDHOLKAR, JJ. was delivered by WANCHOO, J. Sarkar,  J-My learned brother Wanchoo has set out the  facts fully in his judgment and that relieves me of the  necessity of stating them again. The  question  that  has  arisen  is  whether  a  number  of declarations  under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894 can be issued successively in respect of different pieces of lands   included   within  the  locality  specified   in   a notification  issued  under  S. 4 of the  Act.   My  learned brother has said that ss. 4, 5A and 6 of the Act have to  be read together and so read, the conclusion is clear that  the Act contem-                             559 plates only a single declaration under s. 6 in respect of  a notification  under  s.  4.1  so  entirely  agree  with  his reasonings  for this view that I find it unnecessary to  add anything  to  them.  But it was said that  there  are  other considerations  which  indicate that our  reading  of  these sections  is  unsound.  In this judgment I propose  to  deal only with these considerations. It  was  said  that the Government may  have  difficulty  in making  the  plan  of  its  project  complete  at  a   time, particularly  where the project is large and, therefore,  it is  necessary that it should have power to make a number  of declarations  under s. 6.1 am wholly unable to  accept  this argument.  First, I do not think that a supposed  difficulty would  provide  any justification for  accepting  an  inter- pretation  of a statute against the ordinary meaning of  the language  used  in it.  General considerations of  the  kind suggested  cannot  authorise  a  departure  from  the  plain meaning   of   words.   Secondly,.   I  cannot   imagine   a Government,  which  has vast resources, not being  able  to make  a complete plan of its project at a time.   Indeed,  I think when a plan is made, it is a complete plan.  I  should suppose  that  before  the  Government  starts   acquisition proceedings  by the issue of a notification under s.  4,  it has  made  its  plan for otherwise it cannot  state  in  the notification,  as it has to do, that the land is. likely  to be  needed.  Even if it had not then completed its plan,  it would  have enough time before the making of  a  declaration under  s.  6  to  do  so.   I  think,  therefore,  that  the difficulty of the Government, even if there is one, does not lead to the conclusion that the Act contemplates the  making of  a  number of ’declarations under s. 6.1  would  like  to observe  here to avoid confusion that we are  not  concerned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

now with extension of a completely planned project conceived later.    The  present  contention  is  not  based  on   any difficulty arising out of such a case.  It was said that  if the  Government has not finalised its plan when it  makes  a declaration  under  s.  6,  it would  have  to  start  fresh acquisition proceedings beginning with a notification  under s.  4 to provide for the complete plan if it could not  make any  more  declarations and in such a case,  in  conceivable circumstances, it may have to pay more for the land that  it then  sought to acquire.  This argument concedes that  even if  the Government has not been able to make its  plan  when making  a declaration under s. 6, the result is not that  it cannot  acquire  any  more  land  later  when  the  plan  is completed.   The  real  point,  therefore,  of  the  present argument  is that the Act should be so interpreted that  the Government should not be put to extra cost when it has  been unable to complete its plan at a time.  This seems to me  to be  a strange argument.  First, there is no reason  why  the Act should provide for the Government’s failure to  complete the  plan.  Secondly, the argument is hypothetical  for  one does not know for sure whether a later acquisition will cost more  or lessr Arguments on hypothetical considerations  can have  little  weight  in interpreting  statutes.   But  even otherwise this view of the matte. 560 does  not  support  the  argument.  After  the  issue  of  a notification  under s. 4, an owner of land in  the  locality notified  cannot  have  full  beneficial  enjoyment  of  his property;  he cannot, for example, build on his land for  if he  does  so-and  the  land is  acquired,  he  will  get  no compensation for the building put up and will lose the costs incurred for it.  If it is a justification for saying that a number  of  declarations  can be made  under  s.  6  because otherwise  the Government may have to pay more, it seems  to me that it is at an equal justification for saying that such declarations  cannot  have  been  contemplated  by  the  Act because  that  would mean an avoidable  deprivation  of  the owners of their beneficial enjoyment of lands till such time as  the Government is able to make its plan.  As the Act  is an  expropriatory Act, that interpretation of it  should  be accepted  which  puts the least burden on  the  expropriated owner.  The  Government  could, of  course,  always  make  a complete plan at a time and I am unable to hold that the Act contemplated  that  it  need  not do so  and  go  on  making declarations  from time to time as its plan goes  on  taking shape  even  though  the result might  be  to  increase  the hardship of persons whose lands are taken away. Reference  was  then made to sub-ss. (1) and (4) of  s.  17. These  give the Government the power to, take possession  of waste and arable lands included in the notification under S. 4 on the expiry of fifteen days from the publication of  the notice mentioned in S. 9 and before the making of the award, without  holding  the enquiry contemplated by S. 5.  It  was said that if a notification under s. 4 included both  arable and waste lands as also lands of other descriptions, it will be  necessary to issue two separate declarations under s.  6 in  respect  of the different kinds of lands.  It  was  also said  that the vesting in respect of the two kinds of  lands in the Government would also be by stages, All this, it  was contended,  would  support  the  view  that  more  than  one declaration  under s. 6 was contemplated in such a case.   I do  not feel called upon to ,express any opinion whether  in such  a  case  a  number  of  declarations  under  s.  6  is contemplated.  It is enough to say that it is not  contended that  this is a case of that kind.  Therefore, it cannot  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

said  that the disputed declaration under S. 6 was  in  this case  justified  under  s. 17.  On the contrary,  if  t  the contention  that S. 17 contemplates more  declarations  than one under s. 6 be correct, that would be because the statute specifically  so  provided for a particular case.   It  must follow  that  without  a special provision,  more  than  one declaration under S. 6 was not contemplated. The  next  contention  was  that  s.  48  which  gives   the Government  power  of  withdrawal  from  acquisition  before taking  possession  implies that a notification under  s.  4 remains  in force for all purpose till such withdrawal,  and if it so remains in force, successive declarations under  s. 6  must be permissible for otherwise it would be useless  to keep the notification under s. 4 in force.  The substance 561 of   this  argument  is that the only way to get  rid  of  a notification under s.    4   is  by  a  withdrawal  of   the acquisition proceedings under s. 48; if the proceedings  are not  withdrawn, the notification remains and then there  may be  successive  declarations.   This argument  seems  to  me clearly ill founded.  Now a notification under s. 4 will  be exhausted  if a declaration is made under it in  respect  of the  entire  area covered by it.  Likewise, it seems  to  me that  if  the  correct  interpretation  is  that  only   one declaration can be made under s. 6, that also would  exhaust the  notification  under s. 4; that  notification  would  no longer  remain  in force to justify  successive  declaration under  s.  6 in respect of different areas included  in  it. There  is nothing in the Act to support the view that it  is only a withdrawal under s. 48 that puts a notification under s.  4 completely out of the way.  The effect of s. 48 is  to withdraw   the   acquisition  proceedings,   including   the notification  under  s.  4 with which it  started.   We  are concerned  not  with a withdrawal but with the  force  of  a notification under s. 4 having become exhausted.  That is  a different case and has nothing to do with a withdrawal. Lastly,  we were referred to sub-ss., (2) and (3) of s.  49. These sub-sections state that where a claim for compensation is made on the ground of severance of the land acquired from the remaining land of the owner for which provision is  made under  s.  23, if the Government thinks that  the  claim  is unreasonable  it may, before the making of the award,  order the  acquisition  of the whole land and in such  a  case  no fresh  declaration  under  s. 6 will be  necessary.   It  is contended  that  these  provisions  support  the  view  that successive declarations under s. 6 were contemplated.  I  do not think they do so.  In any case, I even if they did, then that  would  be  because in d particular  case  the  statute specially  provided for successive declarations under s.  6. The  present  is not that special case.  Furthermore,  as  I have  said in connection with the argument based on  s.  17, the  fact that a special provision was necessary  to  enable successive  declarations under s. 6 to be made would  go  to support  the view that without a special provision there  is no  power given by the Act to issue successive  declarations under s. 6. 1 would for these reasons dismiss the appeal with costs. Wanchoo,  J.-The  only question raised in this appeal  on  a certificate  granted  by the Madhya Pradesh  High  Court  is whether  it is open to the appropriate government  to  issue successive notifications under s. 6 of the Land  Acquisition Act,  No.  1 of 1894, (hereinafter referred to as  the  Act) with respect to land comprised within one notification under s. 4(1) of the Act.  The question arises in this way. On May 16, 1949, a notification was issued under s. 4 (1) of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

the  Act  by  which it was declared  that  lands  in  eleven villages including village Chhawani was likely to be  needed for a public 562 purpose, i.e., the erection of an iron and steel plant.   It appears that thereafter notifications were issued under s. 6 with  respect to the villages notified in  the  notification under s. 4(1) and it is not in dispute that a number of such notifications under S. 6 were issued with respect to village Chhawani  and some land in that village was  acquired  under those notifications, the last’ of such acquisitions being in the  vear  1956.   Thereafter on August  12,  1960,  another notification  under  s.  6  of the Act  was  issued  by  the appropriate government proposing to acquire 486-17 acres  of land in village Chhawani and the area which was proposed  to be  acquired was demarcated on a map kept in the  office  of the Collector of Durg for inspection.  The notification also stated  that the provisions of S. 5-A of the Act shall  not apply thereto.  Thereupon the respondents who are interested in  some of the land notified filed a writ petition  in  the High  Court  challenging the validity  of  the  notification under s. 6. The principal contention raised on their  behalf was that the notification under s. 6 of the Act was void  as it had not been preceded by a fresh notification under s. 1) and  the  notification  under S. 4(1)  issued  in  1949  had exhausted itself when notifications under s. 6 with  respect to  this  village had been issued previously and  could  not support  the  issue of another notification under s.  6.  In substance  the  contention  of  the  respondents  in   their petition  was  that a notification under s.  4(1)  could  be followed only by one notification under s. 6 and that  there could be no successive notifications under s. 6 with respect to lands comprised in one notification under s. 4(1). The petition was opposed on behalf of the appellant, and  it was contended that it was open to the appropriate government to  issue as many notifications as it deemed fit under s.  6 of   the  Act  with  respect  to  lands  comprised  in   one notification under s. 4(1) and that it was not correct  that the notification under s. 4(1) was ,exhausted as soon as one notification under s. 6 was issued with respect to a part of the  land comprised in the notification under s.  4(1),  and that  it  was always open to the appropriate  government  to issue  successive notifications under s. 6 so long as  these notifications were with respect to land comprised within the notification under s. 4(1). The   High  Court  has  accepted  the  contention   of   the respondents and has held that a notification under s. 4  (1) can only be followed by one notification under S. 6 and that it  is  not  open to the  appropriate  government  to  issue successive  notifications with respect to parts of the  land comprised in one notification under s. 4 and that as soon as one  notification is issued under s. 6, whether it  be  with respect  to part of the land comprised in  the  notification under  s.,  4(1)  or with respect to the whole  of  it,  the notification  under s. 4(1) is exhausted and cannot  support any further notification under s. 6 ,of the Act with respect to parts of land comprised in the notifi- 563 cation  under s. 6. In consequence the petition was  allowed and  the  notification dated August 12, 1960  quashed.   The appellant  then applied to the High Court for a  certificate which  was granted; and that is how the matter has  come  up before us. The question whether only one notification under s. 6 can be issued  with respect to land comprised in  the  notification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

under s. 4(1) and thereafter the notification under S.  4(1) exhausts itself and cannot support any further  notification under  s.  6  with respect to such  land  depends  upon  the construction  of  ss.  4, 5-A and 6 of the Act  and  on  the connection between these provisions.  Before however we deal with these provisions we may briefly refer to the scheme  of the Act and the background in which these provisions have to be interpreted. The  Act provides for the exercise of the power  of  eminent domain and authorises the appropriate government to  acquire lands  thereunder  for public purpose or for purposes  of  a company.  The proceedings begin with a notification under S. 4 (1).  After such a notification it is permissible under s. 4(2) for any officer of government, his servants and workmen to  enter upon and survey the land in such locality, to  dig or bore into the subsoil, to do all other acts necessary  to ascertain  whether the land is adapted for the  purpose  for which  it was needed, to set out the boundaries of the  land proposed  to  be  taken and the intended line  of  the  work proposed  to  be made thereon, to mark  boundaries  etc.  by placing  marks  and fences and where  otherwise  the  survey cannot  be completed to cut down and clear away any part  of any  standing  crop, fence or jungle.  While the  survey  is being  done  under  S.  4 (2), it  is  open  to  any  person interested  in  the land notified under s. 4 (1)  to  object under  s. 5-A before the Collector within thirty days  after the issue of the notification to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality.  The Collector is authorised to  hear  the objections and is required after  hearing  all such objections and after making such further enquiry as  he thinks necessary to submit the case for the decision of  the appropriate  government  together  with the  record  of  the proceedings   held   him  and  a   report   containing   his recommendations on the objections.  Thereaft the appropriate government  decides  the  objections and  such  decision  is final.   If  the appropriate government is  satisfied  after considering  the report that any particular land  is  needed for  a  public  purpose or for a company it has  to  make  a declaration  to that effect.  After such a  declaration  has been made under s, 6 the appropriate government directs  the Collector  under S. 7 to take order for the  acquisition  of the  land.   Sections 8 to 15 provide  for  the  proceedings before  the Collector.  Section 16 authorises the  Collector to  take possession after he has made the award under s.  II and  thereupon the land vests absolutely in  the  government free from all encumbrances.  Section 17 provides for special powers in cases of urgency.  If a 564 person is not satisfied with the award of the Collector, ss. 18  to 28 provide for proceedings on a reference  to  court. Sections  31  to  34 provide for  payment  of  compensation. Sections 38 to 44 make special provisions for acquisition of land for companies.  Section 48 gives power to government to withdraw   from  the  acquisition  of  any  land  of   which possession  has  not been taken.  Section  49  provides  for special  powers  with  respect  to  acquisition  of  house,’ building or manufactory and of land severed from other land. It  will  be seen from this brief review of  the  provisions with respect to acquisition of land that ss. 4 and 6 are the basis  of all the proceedings which follow and  without  the notifications required under ss. 4 and 6 no acquisition  can take place.  The importance of a notification under s. 4  is that  on  the  issue of such notification the  land  in  the locality  to  which the notification applies is in  a  sense freezed.  This freezing takes place intwo ways.  Firstly the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

market value of the land to be acquired has to be determined on  the  date of the notification under s. 4(1)  :  [see  s. 23(1) firstly].  Secondly, any outlay or improvements on  or disposal  of the land acquired commenced, made  or  effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of  the publication  of  the notification under s.  4(1)  cannot  be taken into consideration at all in determining  compensation : (see s. 24, seventhly). It  is  in  this background that we  have  to  consider  the question  raised  before us.  Two things are plain  when  we come  to consider the construction of ss. 4, 5A and  6.  The first  is that the Act provides for acquisition of  land  of persons  without their consent, though compensation is  paid for such acquisition; the fact however remains that land  is acquired  without the consent of the owner thereof and  that is  a circumstance which must be borne in mind when we  come to  consider the question raised before us.  In such a  case the provisions of the statute must be strictly construed  as it  deprives  a  person of his  land  without  his  consent. Secondly,  in interpreting these provisions the  court  must keep  in  view  on the one hand the  public  interest  which compels  such acquisition and on the other the  interest  of the  person  who is being deprived of his land  without  his consent.   It  is  not in dispute that it  is  open  to  the appropriate government to issue as many notifications as  it deems  fit  under  s. 4(1) even with  respect  to  the  same locality  followed  by a proper notification under s.  6  so that the power of the appropriate government to acquire land in  any  locality  is  not exhausted by  the  issue  of  one notification  under s. 4(1) with respect to  that  locality. On  the other hand as the compensation has to be  determined with reference to the date of the notification under S. 4(1) the person whose land is to be acquired may stand to lose if there  is  a great delay between the notification  under  s. 4(1)  and  the notification under s. 6 in case  prices  have risen  in the meantime.  This delay is likely to be  greater if successive notifications under s. 6 can be                             565 issued  with respect to land comprised in  the  notification under  s.  4 with greater consequential loss to  the  person whose  land  is being acquired if prices have risen  in  the meantime.   It is however urged that prices may fall and  in that case the person whose land is being acquired will stand to gain.  But as it is open to the appropriategovernment  to issue  another notification under s. 4 with respect  to  the same  locality after one such notification is  exhausted  by the issue of a notification under S. 6, it may proceed to do so  where it feels that prices have fallen and more land  in that locality is needed and thus take advantage of the  fall in prices in the matter of acquisition.  So it is clear that there  is likely to be prejudiceto the owner of the land  if the  interpretation  urged  on behalf of  the  appellant  is accepted while there will be no prejudice to the  govem-ment if  it  is  rejected  for  it  can  always  issue  a   fresh notification  under  s.  4(1)  after  the  previous  one  is exhausted  in  case  prices  havefallen.   It  is  in   this background  that  we have to consider  the  question  raised before us. As  we have said already, the process of acquisition  always begins.  with a notification under s. 4(1).  That  provision authorises the appropriate government to notify that land in any  locality is needed’ or is likely to be needed  for  any public   purpose.    It  will  be  noticed  that   in   this notification the land needed is not particularised but  only the  locality  where the land is situate is  mentioned.   As

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

was.  observed  by this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur  v.  The State  of  Bombay,(1) a notification under S. 4 of  the  Act envisages  a preliminary investigation and it is only  under s.  6  that the government makes a  firm  declaration.   The purpose  of  the notification under S. 4(1)  clearly  is  to enable  the government to take action under S. 4(2)  in  the matter  of survey of land to decide what particular land  in the locality specified in the notification under s. 4(1)  it will decide to acquire.  Another purpose of the notification under s. 4(1) is to give opportunity to persons owning  land in  that  locality to make objections under s.  5-A.   These objections  are  considered  by  the  Collector  and   after considering all objections he makes a report containing  his recommendation   on  the  objections  to  the   appropriate- government  whose  decision  on  the  objections  is  final. Section  5-A  obviously contemplates  consideration  of  all objections,  made to thenotification under s. 4(1)  and  one report  thereafter  by the Collectorto the  government  with respect  to those objections.  The government  then  finally decides  those objections and thereafter proceeds to make  a declaration  under  s.  6. There is nothing  in  s.  5-A  to suggest  that  the Collector can make a  number  of  reports dealing with the objections piecemeal.  On the other hand S. 5-A specifically provides that the Collector shall hear  all objections made before him and then make a report i.e.  only a   single   report  to  the   government   containing   his recommendation oil the objections. (1)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128). 566 It  seems  to us clear that when such a report  is  received from the Collector by the government it must give a decision on  all the objections at one stage and decide once for  all what  particular land out of the locality notified under  S. 4(1) it wishes to acquire, It has to be satisfied under s. 6 after  considering  the  report made under  S.  5-A  that  a particular  land  is needed for a public purpose  or  for  a company and it then makes a declaration to that effect under s. 6. Reading ss. 4, 5-A and 6 together it seems to us clear that  the  notification under S. 4(1) specifies  merely  the locality in which the land is to be acquired and then  under S. 4(2) survey is made and it is considered whether the land or  part  of it is adapted to the purpose for  which  it  is required  and maps are prepared of the land proposed  to  be taken.   Then  after  objections  under  s.  5-A  have  been disposed  of  the government has to decide  what  particular land out of the locality specified in the notification under S. 4(1) it will acquire.  It then makes a declaration  under s. 6 specifying the particular land that is needed. Sections  4,  5-A  and  6  in  our  opinion  are  integrally connected.  ’Section 4 specifies the locality in, which  the land  is  acquired and provides for survey to  decide  what, particular land out of the locality would be needed.   Section 5-A provides for hearing of objections to the acquisition     and after  these  objections are decided the government  has  to make up its mind and declare what particular land out of the locality  it will acquire.  When it has so made up its  mind it makes a declaration as to the particular land out of  the locality  notified in S. 4(1) which it will acquire.  It  is clear from this intimate connection between ss. 4, 5-A and 6 that  as soon as the ,government has made up its  mind  what particular  land out of the locality it requires, it has  to issue a declaration under S. 6 to that effect.  The purpose of the notification under S. 4(1) is at this stage over  and it may be said that it is exhausted after the  notifi-cation under  S.  6. If the government requires more land  in  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

locality besides that notified-under S. 6, there is  nothing to  prevent  it from issuing another notification  under  S. 4(1)   making  a  further  survey  if   necessary,   heating objections and then making another declaration under S.  6. The notification under S. 4(1) thus informs the public  that land  is  required  Or would be  required  in  a  particular locality  and  thereafter the Members of the  public  owning land in that locality have to make objections under S.  5-A; the government then makes up its mind as to what  particular land  in that locality is required and makes  a  declaration under  s.  6. It seems to us clear that once  a  declaration under s. 6 is made, the notification under S. 4(1) must  be, exhausted, for it has served its purpose.  There is  nothing in  ss. 4, 5-A and 6 to suggest that S. 4 ,(1) is a kind  of reservoir  from which the government may from time  to  time draw  out  land  and make declarations with  respect  to  it :successively.  If that was the intention behind sections 4, 5-A and 567 6 we would have found some indication of it in the  language used therein.  But as we read these three sections  together we can only find that the scheme is that s. 4 specifies  the locality,  then there may be survey and drawing of  maps  of the  land and the consideration whether the land is  adapted for the purpose for which it has to be acquired, followed by objections and making up of its mind by the government  what particular  land  out of that locality it  needs.   This  is followed by a declaration ’Under s. 6 specifying the  parti- cular  land  needed and that in our  opinion  completes  the process and the notification under s. 4(1) cannot be further used  thereafter.   At  the stage of s. 4 the  land  is  not particularised  but only the locality is mentioned;  at  the stage of s. 6 the land in the locality is particularised and thereafter  it  seems to us that the notification  under  s. 4(1)  having  served  its  purpose  exhausts  itself.    The sequence  of events from a notification of the intention  to acquire (s.    4(1)   to   the  declaration   under   s.   6 unmistakably  leads  one to the reasonable  conclusion  that when once a declaration under S. 6 particularising the  area out   of  the  area  in  the  locality  specified   in   the notification  under  s. 4(1) is issued, the  remaining  non- particularised  area  stands  automatically  released.    In effect  the  scheme of these three sections  is  that  there should be first a notification under S. 4(1) followed by one notification under S. 6 after the government has made up its mind which land out of the locality it requires. It  is urged however that where the land is required  for  a small  project and the area is not large the government  may be able to make up its mind once for all what land it needs, but  where  as in the present case land is  required  for  a large project requiring a large area of land government  may not be able to make up its mind all at once.  Even if it  be so  there is nothing to prevent the government from  issuing another  nonfication under s. 4 followed by  a  notification under  S. 6. As we have said before, the government’s  power to acquire land in a particular locality is not exhausted by issuing  one  notification  under  s.  4(1)  followed  by  a notification  under  S.  6.  The  interpretation  which  has commended  itself  to  us therefore  does  not  deprive  the government  of the power to acquire more land from the  same locality if later on it thinks that more land than what  has been declared under s. 6 is needed.  It can proceed to do so by   a  fresh  notification  under  s.  4(1)  and  a   fresh declaration  under  s.  6. Such a  procedure  would  in  our opinion  be  fair  to  all concerned; it  will  be  fair  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

government where the prices have fallen and it will be  fair to those whose land is being acquired where the prices  have risen.  Therefore as we read these three sections we are  of opinion  that they are integrally and  intimately  connected and the intention of legislature was that one,  notification under  S. 4(1) should be followed by survey under S.  4  (2) and objections under s. 5-A and thereafter one declaration 568 under  S.  6.  There is nothing in ss. 4, 5-A  and  6  which supports  the construction urged on behalf of the  appellant and  in any case it seems to us that the construction  which commends  itself  to us and which has been accepted  by  the High  Court  is  a fair construction  keeping  in  view  the background   to  which  we  have  referred.   Even  if   two constructions  were possible, which we think is not  so,  we would  be inclined to the construction which  has  commended itself to us because that construction does not restrict the power of the government to acquire land at any time it deems fit to do and at the same time works fairly towards  persons whose land is to be acquired compulsorily. It  now remains to consider certain other provisions of  the Act  to  which  reference has been made  on  behalf  of  the appellant  to show that successive notifications under s.  6 are  contemplated  with  respect  to  land  in  a   locality specified  in  the notification under s.  4(1).   The  first provision  is  contained in s. 17(4).  Section  17(1)  gives power  to government in cases of urgency to direct that  the Collector  should  take possession of-the  land  before  the award is made and such possession can be taken on expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice under  s. 9(1).  Further such possession can only be taken of waste or arable  land  and on such possession being taken  such  land vests   absolutely   in  the  government   free   from   all encumbrances.   To  carry out the purposes of S.  17(1),  S. 17(4)  provides that the appropriate government  may  direct that  the provisions of S. 5-A shall not apply in  cases  of urgency  and if it so directs, a declaration under S. 6  may be  made  in  respect  of the land at  any  time  after  the publication of the notification under s. 4(1).  It is  urged that  this shows that where the land notified under S.  4(1) includes  land of the kind mentioned in S. 17 (1)  and  also land  which is not of that kind it would be open to  govern- ment  to make a declaration under S. 6 with respect  to  the land   mentioned   in  S.  17(1)   immediately   after   the notification under s. 4(1) while notification with  respect to  the land which is not of the kind mentioned in s.  17(1) can follow later after the enquiry under s. 5-A is over  and objections have been disposed of.  So it is urged that  more than  one declaration is contemplated under s. 6  after  one notification  under s. 4(1).  There are two answers to  this argument.  In the first place where the land to be  acquired is  of the kind mentioned in s. 17(1) and also of  the  kind not  included  in S. 17(1) there is nothing to  prevent  the government from issuing two notifications under s. 4(1)  one relating  to land which comes within s. 17(1) and the  other relating to land which cannot come within S. 17(1).   There- after  the  government may issue a notification under  s.  6 following  the. notification under s. 4(1) with  respect  to the   land   to  which  s.  17(1)  applies   while   another notification  under  S. 6 with respect to land to  which  s. 17(1)  does not apply can follow after the enquiry under  S. 5-A.  So section 17(4) does not necessarily mean that                             569  there  can  be  two  notifications under  s.  6  where  the provisions  of  that section are to be  utilised,  for,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

government  can from the beginning issue  two  notifications under  s. 4 and follow them up by two declarations under  s. 6.  But  even  assuming  that it is  possible  to  make  two declarations under s. 6 (though in view of what we have said above this is not necessary and we express no final  opinion about it) where the land to be acquired is both of the  kind mentioned  in  s. 17(1) and also of the kind  not  comprised therein,   all   that  the  government  can  do   in   those circumstances   after  one  notification  under  s.  4   (1) comprising both lands is to issue one notification under  s. 6  comprising  lands  coming within  s.  17(1)  and  another notification  under  s. 6 with respect to  land  not  coming within s. 17(1) sometime later after the enquiry under s. 5- A  is  finished.   This however  follows  from  the  special provisions  contained  in s. 17(1) and (4) and  in  a  sense negatives the contention of the appellant based only, on ss. 4, 5-A and 6. It may be added that that is not the  position in the present case.  Therefore even if it were possible  to issue   two  notifications  under  s.  6  in   the   special circumstances  arising out of the application of  s.  17(4), all  that is possible is to issue one notification  relating to land to which S. 17(1) applies and another.  notification relating to land to which s.  17(1)  cannot apply.   Further if both these kinds of land are included in the notification under  S.  4(1), the issue of two notifications under  s.  6 follows  from the special provisions contained in  s.  17(1) and  S. 17(4) and not from the provisions of ss. 4, 5-A  and 6.  The  present  is  not  a case  of  this  kind,  for  the notification  under S. 4(1) in this case issued in May  1949 did  not contain any direction relevant to S. 17(4).  It  is true  that the declaration under S. 6 dated August 12,  1960 contains a direction under s. 17(4), but the effect of  that merely is to allow the government to take possession of  the land within 15 days after the issue of notice under S. 9(1). This  is on the assumption that a direction under  s.  17(4) can  be issued along with the notification under S. 6 as  to which  we express no opinion.  We are therefore  of  opinion that  the  provisions  in  S.  17(4)  do  not  lead  to  the conclusion   that   section   6   contemplates    successive notifications following one notification under s. 4(1).   As we interpret ss. 4, 5-A and 6 that is not the intention in a normal  case.   Even in a case of urgency there can  at  the most  be  only two notifications under s.  6  following  one notification  under s. 4(1), one relating to land  which  is covered by s. 17(1) and the other relating to land which  is not  covered  by S. 17(1), provided both kinds of  land  are notified by one notification under s. 4(1).  As we have said even  that  is not necessary for we are of opinion  that  in such a case the government can issue two notifications under s. 4(1), one relating to land to which S. 17(1) applies  and the other relating to land to which s. 17(1) does not  apply and  thereafter there will be two notifications under  s.  6 each following its own predecessor under s. 4(1). 570 Then  reliance  is  placed  on  S.  48  which  provides  for withdrawal from acquisition.  The argument is that S. 48  is the  only provision in the Act which deals  with  withdrawal from  acquisition  and  that  is  the  only  way  in   which government  can  withdraw from the  acquisition  and  unless action  is  taken under S. 48(1) the notification  under  S. 4(1)  would remain (presumably for ever).  It is urged  that the  only  way in which the notification under S.  4(1)  can come to an end is by withdrawal under S. 48(1).  We are  not impressed by this argument.  In the first place, under S. 21 of  the General Clauses Act, (No. 10 of 1897), the power  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

issue  a  notification  includes the power  to  rescind  it. Therefore  it  is  always open to government  to  rescind  a notification under s. 4 or under s. 6, and withdrawal  under S.  48(1) is not the only way in which a notification  under s.  4  or  S. 6 can be brought to  an  end.   Section  48(1) confers  a  special power on government of  withdrawal  from acquisition without canceling the notifications under ss.  4 and  6,  provided it has not taken possession  of  the  land covered   by   the  notification  under  S.   6.   In   such circumstances the government has to give compensation  under S.  48(2).  This compensation is for the damage suffered  by the owner in consequence of the notice under S. 9 or of  any proceedings  thereafter  and includes costs  reasonably  in- curred  by him in the prosecution of the  proceedings  under the Act relating to the said land.  The notice mentioned  in sub-s.  (2) obviously refers to the notice under S. 9(1)  to persons interested.  It seems that S. 48 refers to the stage after  the  Collector  has  been asked  to  take  order  for acquisition under S. 7 and has issued notice under S.  9(1). It  does  not refer to the stage prior to the issue  of  the declaration  under  s. 6. Section 5 says  that  the  officer taking action under s. 4(2) shall pay or tender payment  for all  necessary  damage  done by his acting  under  s.  4(2). Therefore  the damage if any, caused after the  notification under  S.  4(1)  is provided in  section  5.  Section  48(2) provides for compensation after notice has been issued under S.  9(1)  and  the  Collector  has  taken  proceedings   for acquisition of the land by virtue of the direction under  s. 7. Section 48(1) thus gives power to government to  withdraw from  the  acquisition without canceling  the  notifications under ss. 4 and 6 after notice under s. 9(1) has been issued and before possession is taken.  This power can be exercised even after the Collector has made the award under S. 11  but before  he  takes  possession  under  s.  15  Section  48(2) provides for compensation in such a case.  The argument that S.  48(1)  is the only method in which  the  government  can withdraw from the acquisition has therefore no force because the government can always cancel the notifications under ss. 4  and 6 by virtue of its power under S. 21 of  the  General Clauses  Act  and  this power can be  exercised  before  the government directs the Collector to take action under S.  7. Section  48(1) is a special provision for those cases  where proceedings  for acquisition have’ gone beyond the stage  of the issue of notice under S. 9(1) and 571 it   provides  for payment of compensation under.  s.  48(2) read with S.   48(3).    We  cannot  therefore  accept   the argument that without an order     under     S.48(1)     the notification under S. 4 must remain outstanding.  It can  be cancelled  at  any  time by government under s.  21  of  the General  Clauses  Act and what s. 48(1) shows is  that  once government has taken possession it cannot withdraw from  the acquisition.   Before that it may cancel  the  notifications under  ss. 4 and 6 or it may withdraw from  the  acquisition under s. 48(1).  If no notice has been issued under s.  9(1) all  that the government has to do is to pay for the  damage caused  as provided in s. 5; if on the other hand  a  notice has been issued under s. 9(1), damage has also to be paid in accordance with the provisions of s. 48(2) and (3).  Section 48(1)  therefore  is of no assistance to the  appellant  for showing that successive declarations under S. 6 can be  made with  respect  to  land in the  locality  specified  in  the notification under s. 4(1). Then  reference  is made to s. 49(2) and  (3).   These  sub- sections. lay down a special provision applicable in certain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

circumstances.    Among  the  factors  to  be   taken   into consideration  in fixing the compensation is the  damage  if any  sustained by the person interested at the time  of  the Collector’s  taking  possession  of the land  by  reason  of severing  such  land  from his other  land.   Section  49(2) provides.  that if a person is claiming an unreasonable  and excessive   compensation  for  this  kind  of  damage,   the government  can order the acqui-sition of the whole  of  the land  even though under s. 6 only part of the land may  have been declared.  Sub-section (3) provides that in such a case no  action under S. 6 to S. 10 would be necessary  and  that all that the Collector is to do is to give an award under s. 11. The argument is that S. 49(3) does not mention S. 4  and therefore it follows that successive notifications under  S. 6  can  be  issued  with respect to  land  in  the  locality specified  in the notification under s. 4(1).  We  have  not been able to understand how this follows from the fact  that S.  4(1)  is  not mentioned in S. 49(3).. As  we  have  said already s. 49(2) and (3) provide for a very special case and the  order  of government under s. 49(2) may in a  sense  be taken  to  serve the purpose of S. 4(1) in  such  a  special case.   Thereafter  all that s. 49(3) provides is  that  the Collector may proceed straight off to determine compensation under  s. 11, the reason for this being that all  the  other steps  necessary  for determining compensation under  s.  11 have already been taken in the presence of the parties. Lastly it is urged that vesting is also contemplated in two, stages  and that shows that successive notifications can  be issued under s. 6 following one notification under s.  4(1). Section 16 provides for taking possession and vesting  after the  award hap, been made.  Section 17 provides  for  taking possession  and consequent vesting before the award is  made in case of urgency.  We 572 fail to see how these provisions as to vesting can make  any difference  to  the  interpretation of ss.  4,  5-A  and  6. Section  16  deals with a normal case  where  possession  is taken  after the award is made while s. 17(1) deals with  a special  case where possession is taken fifteen  days  after the notice tinder s. 9(1).  Vesting always follows taking of possession  and  there can be vestin either under s.  16  or under  s. 17(1) depending upon whether the case is a  normal one or an urgent one.  What we have said with respect to  s. 17(1)  .and S. 17(4) would apply in this matter  of  vesting also  and  if the matter is of urgency  the  government  can always issue two notifi-cations under s. 4, one relating  to land urgently required and covered by S. 17(1) and the other relating  to  land not covered by S.  17(1).   The  argument based  on  these provisions in s. 16 and s. 17 can  have  no effect on the interpretation of ss. 4, 5-A and 6 for reasons which  we have given when dealing with ss. 17(1) and  17(4). We are therefore of opinion that the High Court was right in holding :that there can be no successive notifications under S.  6  with respect to land in a locality specified  in  one notification under S. 4(1).  As it is not in dispute in this case that there have been a number of notifications under s. 6  with  respect to this village based on  the  notification under  S. 4(1) dated May 16, 1949, the High Court was  right in quashing the notification under s. 6 issued on August 12, 1960 based on the same notification under S. 4(1). The   petition   had   also  raised  a   ground   that   the notification .under S. 6 was vague.  However, in view of our decision on the main point raised in the case we express  no opinion on this aspect .of the matter. The  appeal  therefore fails and is  hereby  dismissed  with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

costs                                     Appeal dismissed. 573