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

PETITIONER: VENKATASWAMAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATASWAMI K. (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the Division  Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on July 17, 1989  in Writ  Appeals Nos.  877-896/89  dismissing  the appeals in  limine and  confirming the judgment and order of the learned  single Judge  dated March 30, 1989 made in Writ Petition Nos. 5316-35/89.      The appellants  have challenged  the  validity  of  the notification  published  under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Land Acquisition Act  1 of 1894, (for short, the "Act") acquiring 80 acres of land in favour of the second respondent - N.T.I. House  Building   Cooperative  Society.  Notification  under Section 4(1)  was published  on February  23, 1989.  Enquiry under Section  5-A was conducted. The appellant participated in the  enquiry. Before  the declaration  could be taken up, the  appellants  filed  the  writ  petition  in  March  1989 challenging the  validity of  the notification.  Before  the learned single  Judge, the appellants had taken five grounds of objections as enumerated in para 2 of the judgment of the learned single  Judge. He  dealt with  each  of  the  points separately  and  negatived  the  same.  The  Division  Bench summarily dismissed  the  appeal.  Thus,  these  appeals  by special leave.      It is  strenuously contended  for the  appellants  that since some of the lands of the appellants were acquired, one on March 2, 1973 for defence purposes and second on July 28, 1988 for  the HMI  House Building  Cooperative Society,  the acquisition of  the lends  under this  notification is  male fide and,  therefore, is  not valid in law. We find no force in the contention. Providing house sites for construction of houses  for  the  members  of  the  second  respondent,  Co- operative  Society   registered  under   State   Cooperative Societies’ Act,  is a  public purpose is not in question and cannot be  questioned in  view of the enlarged definition of ‘public purpose’  under Section  32(c) (vi)  of the  Act  as amended  by  act  No.68  of  1984.  Therefore,  so  long  as providing house  sites to  the members  of  the  Cooperative

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

Society is  a  ‘public  purpose’,  the  contention  that  on earlier occasion  also some  of the  lands belonging  to the appellants were  acquired for  such  or  some  other  public purpose, cannot be held to be mala fide.      It  is   next  contended  that  alternative  lands  are available  and  the  lands  in  question  are  not  fit  for constructon. That  question was  gone into  by  the  learned single Judge  and was negatived. It is a question of fact in each case.  The serious  contention raised  by  the  learned counsel for  appellants is that while the notification under Section 4(1)  of the  Act was published on February 23, 1989 and, the  newspaper publication  thereof had come to be made prior thereto, i.e., on February 1, 1989 and, therefore, the mandatory requirement under sub-section (1) of Section 4 has not been  complied with.  It is  further contended  that the substance of  the notification  was  not  published  in  the locality. These  two contentions  were not raised before the learned single  Judge; even otherwise, we find that there is no force  in these  contentions. It is stated in the counter affidavit and  also in the record of the Section 5-A enquiry prodused by  the appellant which would clearly indicate that after the  notification was  published, it  was published in one of  the newspapers  on February  1, 1989  and  substance thereof was published in the locality on March 20, 1989. The second publication  in the  newspaper could  not be made for the reason  that it  was  already  published  prior  to  the publication of the notification in the Gazette. The question is:  whether   the  procedure   adopted  in  publishing  the notification in  the local  newspaper before it was actually published in  the Gazette is in violation of the requirement under Section 4(1)?      It is  true that normally publication in the newspapers would  be   preceded  by   a  publication   in  the  Gazette notification. It  would  appear  that  in  this  case  while sending  the   notification,  which   was  approved  by  the Government for  publication in  the Gazette,  simultaneously direction was  issued to  have it  published in the Gazette. Therefore, it  would appear  that before  publication in the Gazette was  made, it  was published  in  one  of  the  news papers. This is only an irregularity in the procedural steps required to  be taken  under the Act. It does nos vitiate of the notification published in the Gazette on January.      In support  of the contention that it is mandatory that the  procedure  prescribed  under  Section  4(1)  should  be strictly complied  with,  the  learned  counsel  has  placed strong reliance  on the ratio of this Court in The Collector (District Magistrate)  Allahabad & Anr. Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal etc. [(1985)  3  SCR  995].  There  is  no  dispute  on  the proposition  that  publication  of  the  notification  under Section 4(1)  in the  Gazette is a mandatory requirement. In fact, in that case, that was not done. The contention raised in Jaiswal’s  case (supra)  was that it is only an intention and not  mandatory. This  court has  rightly  rejected  that contention. As  noted earlier,  since the publication of the notification under  Section 4(1)  was made  on February  23, 1989, the  intention of  the Government  to acquire the land for public  purpose had  been  set  in  motion  and  it  was directed to  take the  procedural steps  in that  behalf  as mandated under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. What transpires, therefore,  is that of the notification was made in one  of the  newspapers publication earlier to the actual publication in  the Gazette.  As stated earlier, it was only an irregularity  in the  procedural steps  to be taken under the Act. It is to be seen that the object of the publication of Section  4(1) is  to put  a notice to the owners that the

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

land is  proposed to  be acquired  for a  public purpose and that they are prevented to deal with the lands in any manner detrimental to the public purpose. Obviously, therefore, the publication in  the newspaper would put the owners on notice of  the  proposed  acquisition  even  prior  to  the  actual publication.  Admittedly,   in   one   of   the   newspapers notification was  published after  the  publication  in  the Gazette, namely,  February 1,  1989. The  substance was also published, as  indicated in  the  proceedings  of  the  Land Acquisition Officer  conducted under  Section 5-A,  on March 20, 1989, the last of the dates was taken for the purpose of notification under  Section 4(1).  In that view we hold that there was no infraction of the compliance of the requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act.      It is  then contended  that since the limitation period of one  year from  the date of the publication under Section 4(1) had  elapsed and  the stay granted by the High Court or this Court  was only of dispossession of the appellants from the lands,  the notification  under Section  4(1) now stands lapsed by  Explanation 1 to proviso to Section 6(1). We find no force  in the  contention.  It  is  seen  that  the  writ petitions came  to be  filed in March 1989 in the same month in  which   the  substance   of  the   publication  of   the notification under Section 4(1) was made and the proceedings were pending  before the  learned single judge, the Division Bench and  in this  Court. Under  these  circumstances,  the entire time  taken from  the date  of the filing of the writ petitions till  the date of the receipt of the order of this Court stands  excluded and  the limitation of one year would start  thereafter   only.  Accordingly,  we  hold  that  the notification under  Section 4(1) has not been +lapsed. It is now on  record that  the appellants have already filed their objections; enquiry  under Section  5-A  was  conducted  and report obviously  must have been furnished to the Government for taking further steps in the matter. It would, therefore, be necessary  for the  Government to consider the objections and have  the declaration  under Section 6 published, if the Government is  of the  opinion that the public purpose still subsists.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed with the above observations. The State Government is directed to publish the declaration, if the objections are overruled, within four months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.