AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sarkaria, J.—By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners are impugning some notifications purporting to have been issued on the 20th February, 1970 and 9th September, 1970 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called ''the Act''), respectively.
Several grounds of challenge were taken in the petition. In view of the return filed by the respondents, however, only one ground has been pressed at the time of arguments The same is that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 (Annexures Rule 1 & Rule 2 to the written statement) are invalid, because they do not give sufficient description of the land and the locality, so as to give notice to the petitioners that so much of their land is being acquired. It is argued that the result of this omission was that the petitioners were unable to prefer any objections u/s 5-A of the Act.
It may be noted that Section 4 of the Act says that the land in the locality is to be described The object is that the persons affected should come to know from the notification itself, without reference to any extraneous thing, that so much of their land is likely to be acquired, so that they may, if they so desire, prefer objections to the acquisition u/s 5-A. Further, Section 6 enjoins that when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5-A(2) that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its order. The use of the word ''particular'' is significant it means that in the declaration issued u/s 6, it is essential to give so much particulars of the land as are sufficient to enable the owner of the land or the person interested in it to know with reasonable certainty whether or not and how much of his property is being covered by the declaration.
It is to be seen how far these mandatory requirements of the law have been complied with in the instant case. The notification u/s 4 of the Act (Annexure Rule 1 to the written statement) simply gives this description of the land:
"District
Tehsil
Mauza
Area in acres
Direction/ Boundaries
Jullundur
Nakodar
Adarman
17.87
A strip of land 14970 feet in length and of
Do
Do
Angikiri
4.23
varying widths generally lying in the di
Do
Do
Mehatpur
2,39
rection from North East to South West
Total
24.49
and then from North-West to South-East as demarcated at site "
Exactly the same description, without any addition, has been repeated in the declaration u/s 8 of the Act (Annexure ''A'' to the writ-petition).
It was contended before me on behalf of the petitioners that the mere note in these notifications, saving that "the strip of land had been demareated at site" was not a sufficient compliance with the law. Reliance has been placed on Agra Electric Supply Co., Ltd. Vs. The Labour Court, Meerut and Another,
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State maintained that if the Chief object of the notification u/s 4 of the Act was to give notice to the landowner that his land was likely to be acquired, then the demarcation of the land at the site would be the best way of conveying that information. It is urged that the rule in Narendrajit''s case is not applicable, because in that case there was no such specification by demarcation of the land at site.
It appears to me that the contention of Mr, Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, must prevail. In Narendrajit''s case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act suffered from a serious defect, in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified, The notification merely showed that the lands mentioned in the schedule were needed, The schedule, in turn, though it contained the heading: "District, Pargana, Mauza. Approximate area." gave no particulars of the same and all that was mentioned by was of a note was, that "the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collector of Rampur". On these facts, their Lordships held that certainly the Act did not intend that all the persons owning tend in the district should rush to the Collector''s office in the District to find out whether their lands were covered by the notification.
It was urged before their Lordships that the notification was in term''s of the section and that the petitioners could not complain in as much as the defect was remedied by the notification u/s 6 which was issued within a fortnight after Section 4 notification, Their Lordships repelled this contention with these observations:
In our view this contention cannot be accepted. Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature-
It is well known that a person interested in the land which is affected by any notification u/s 4(1) may immediately object to it and take proceedings in Court against it-
In our view the defect in a notification u/s 4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification u/s 6(1). In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification u/s 6(1) could not be given in the one u/s 4(1) "The above observations of the Supreme Court apply with greater force to the facts of the instant case. Here, the defect in the first notification u/s 4 was repeated in the declaration u/s 6, also. It appears to me that a note in the notification u/s 4(1), to the effect, ''that the required land has been demarcated at site'' is not a sufficient compliance with the law. The chief object of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) being to give information to the landowner or the person interested in it of the likelihood of his land being acquired, to enable him to file objections, if any, u/s 5-A, the notification itself should be a self-contained document, capable of conveying that information without reference to any extraneous thing''. The impugned notification, by itself, is incapable of giving such a notice to those landowners who may not be residing in the locality where the land is situate. Some of them may even be residing in other States. Such absentee owners cannot take upon themselves the onerous task of running back to the site to ascertain if their land is being acquired. Moreover, the mere demarcation at site without any finalised plan in the official records is a very unsafe way of describing the land. It may change with every which or brainwave of the petty officer supervising the works at the spot.
There is still another reason why such a note with regard to the demarcation of the land at site cannot be accepted as a valid substitute for sufficient description of the land and the locality in which it is situated, required to be given u/s 4(1) of the Act. Section 4(i) requires not only the publication of a notification in the official gazette containing specific description of the locality with reference to the land, but also peremptorily requires the Collector to cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality.
As pointed out by Kirty J. in Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others, this requirement with regard to the public notice and the substance of the notification in the locality presupposes that the notification itself is to contain description of the locality, which can be condensed and reduced into a substance of the notification.
A glance at the impugned notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act would show that independently of the note, they do not contain particulars, adequately revealing the locality and the land proposed to be acquired therein. Both the notifications, therefore, are bad in law and must be struck down. In the result, the writ-petition is accepted and the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act are quashed. respondent 1 shall pay the costs of the petitioners. Counsel''s fees Rs. 100/-.