http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ABDUL RAZAK SAHIB

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1972

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

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2361            1973 SCR  (1) 856  1973 SCC  (3) 196  CITATOR INFO :  E          1984 SC1721  (1,6)  F          1985 SC1622  (13)  RF         1991 SC1676  (43)

ACT: Land  Acquisition  Act  1894,  s.  4  (1)-Requirements   of- Publication  of notice in official gazette whether  must  be mandatorily accompanied by or immediately followed by public notice in locality.

HEADNOTE: A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition  Act, 1894  in  respect of land belonging to  the  respondent  was published  in  the  official gazette of  the  Government  of Mysore  on  August 17, 1961.  But no notice as  required  by that section were published in the locality till November  1 and 19 of 1961.  Under s. 5A of the Act the time limited for filing  objections  is  thirty days from the  issue  of  the notification.   The respondent filed his objections only  on December  4, 1961.  In his writ petition  under      Article 226  of  the Constitution the respondent contended that  the notice under s. 4   was invalid.. The High Court upheld  the contention and quashed the    impugned  notification.    The State of Mysore appealed to this Court with certificate. HELD:   Under  certain  circumstances  publication  in   the official gazette is presumed  to be notice to all concerned. But  in  the  case of a notification under. 4  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act the law has prescribed that in addition  to the publication of the notification in the official  gazette the  Collector must also give publicity to the substance  of the  notification  in the concerned locality.   Unless  both these  conditions  are  satisfied  section  4  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act cannot be said to have been complied  with. no publication of the notices in the locality is a mandatory requirement.   In  the  absence  of  such  publication   the interested persons may not be able to file their  objections about the acquisition proceedings and they will be  deprived of the right of representation provided under s. 5A which is a  valuable  right.   Under  s.  4  it  is  only  when   the notification is published in the official gazette and it  is accompanied by or immediately followed by Public notice that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

a person interested in the property proposed to be  acquired can  be  regarded  to  have  had  notice  of  the   proposed notification.[857H-858D] The   impugned   notification  did  not  comply   with   the requirement  of the law since it was not accompanied  by  or immediately followed by public notice.  The High Court  was, therefore,  justified  in quashing  the  proceedings  taken. [858E] The appeal must accordingly fail. Gangadharaih  v. State of Mysore & Ors., (1961)  Mys.   L.J. 883, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2461 of 1968. Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated June 6, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. No. 769 of 1966. S. V. Gupte, for the appellant. Respondent did not appear. 857 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde,  J. This appeal arises from certain land  acquisition Proceedings.   The Government of Mysore notified  the  lands belonging   to   the  respondent   for   acquisition.    The notification  under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894, was  published in the official gazette on August  17,  1961, but no notices as required by that section were published in the  locality till November 1 and 9, 1961.   The  respondent filed.  his  objections  only  on  December  4,  1961.   The question  for  consideration  is  whether  the  notification issued  under s. 4 is a valid notification.  The  respondent challenged the validity of the notification before the  High Court  of Mysore by means of a writ petition under Art.  226 of the Constitution.  The High Court came to the  conclusion that the impugned notification was invalid and  consequently quashed the same.  As against that decision this appeal  has been brought after obtaining certificate under Art. 13 3 ( 1 ) (b) of the Constitution. We shall now read s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It says :               "4. (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,  a notification to that effect  shall               be published in the Official Gazette, and  the               Collector  shall  cause public notice  of  the               substance  of such notification to be given at               convenient places in the said locality." The  section  prescribes  two requirements,  namely,  (1)  a notification  to be published in the Official  Gazette,  and (2)  the  Collector  causing to give public  notice  of  the substance  of that notification at convenient places in  the concerned locality.               Now, we may turn to s. 5A(1) of the Act  which               says               "5A.  (1)  Any person interested in  any  land               which has been notified under section 4,  sub-               section  (1), as being needed or likely to  be               needed  for a public purpose or for a  Company               may, within thirty days after the issue of the               notification, object to the acquisition of the               land  or of any land in the locality,  as  the               case may be." Section  5A empowers the interested person to object to  the

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

acquisition  of any land but his objection should  be  filed within  thirty  days  from  the date of  the  issue  of  the notification.   Any objection filed thereafter need  not  be considered as the same is filed after the time stipulated in s. 5A(1). With  the above background we have to consider the scope  of s.  4(1).   Under certain circumstances publication  in  the Official   Gazettes  are  presumed  to  be  notice  to   all concerned. 858 But  in  the case of a notification under s. 4 of  the  Land Acquisition  Act the law has prescribed that in addition  to the publication of the notification in the Official  Gazette the  Collector must also give publicity of the substance  of the  notification  in the concerned locality.   Unless  both these conditions are satisfied, s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act  cannot be said to have been complied.  The  publication of  the notice in the locality is a  mandatory  requirement. It  has an important purpose behind it.  In the  absence  of such  publication the interested persons may not be able  to file their objections about the acquisition proceedings  and they  will  be  deprived  of  the  right  of  representation provided under s. 5A, which is very valuable right. This very question came up for consideration before the High Court  of  Mysore in Gangadharaiah v. State  of  Mysore  and Ors.(1), and the High Court ruled that s. 4(1) requires that there should both be a notification in the gazette as also a public notice in the locality in which the property proposed to be acquired is situate.  It is only when the notification is  published in the Official Gazette and it is  accompanied by  or  immediately followed by the public  notice,  that  a person  interested in the property proposed to  be  acquired can  be  regarded  to  have  had  notice  of  the   proposed acquisition.   We  are entirely in agreement with  the  rate laid down by that decision. The impugned notification has not complied with the require- ment  of  the law.’ Hence the High Court  was  justified  in quashing the proceedings taken. In  the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for  us to  consider  either the applicability or the scope  of  the Mysore Act 17 of 1961 to the present proceedings. In  the result the appeal fails-and the same  is  dismissed. ’.Me respondent is not represented before this Court.  Hence there will be no order as to costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed. (1)[1916] Mys.  L.J. 833 859