Messrs New Ludhiana Industrial Corporation vs The State of Punjab and others

R.S. Sarkaria, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings and the award, dated 28th February, 1969 of the Land Acqusition Collector (Respondeat No. 2) with regard to compensation for the compulsory acqusition of the plot belonging to the petitioners (M/s. New Ludhiana Industrial Corporation, Mandi Kesar Ganjf Ludhiana).

The undisputed facts are that by a deed dated January, 20, 1965, registered on 21st January, 1965, the petitioners (who are a contractual partnership) purchased 16 kanals and 11 marlas of land in the revenue estate of Sherpur Kalan (a suburb of Ludhiana), comprising of Khasra Nos. 47/18, 47/19, 47/22 and 47/23 for an approximate cost of Rs. 40,000/- from the Sherpur Small Scale Co-operative Industrialists Co-operative House Building Society (Respondent No. 4). After the purchase, the petitioners invested approximately Rs. 25,000/- for sinking a tubewell in the plot and for constructing a compound wall and a room. They also constructed a shed for installation of machinery. A Chowkidar of the petitioners'' firm remains present on the plot all the 24 hours and a sign board bearing the name of the petitioners'' firm is also affixed at the entrance gate. On June, 16th 1967 a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') purporting to have been issued by the Punjab Government On June 3, 1967, was published in the Punjab Government Gazette (This is Annexure ''A'' to the writ petition). In this notification, it was stated that about 100 acres of land from the revenue estate of village Sherpur Kalan in had bast No. 176 was needed by the Punjab Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely; for the setting up of an industrial Urban Estate. The land of the petitioners, measuring 18.25 acres, is also situated in the revenue estate bearing had bast No. 176. This was followed by publication of another notification (Annexure ''B''). The Land Acquisition Collector then gave bis award (annexure ''C'') on February 28th 1969. It is alleged in the petition that throughout these procedings the petitioners did not receive any notice, nor did they acquire any knowledge of these acquisition proceedings. It is further alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector deliberately kept the petitioners in dark though he and his agents had come to know that the land in dispute had been purchased by the petitioners from respondent: No. 4. In this connection, it is alleged that the mutation No. 2660 of this purchase was entered in the Patwari''s register on November 6, 1967. It was, however, subsequently cancelled. It is further stated that a copy of this sale deed by which the petitioners purchased the land in question had been produced before the Land Acquisition Collector as proof of the market value of another piece of land that was being acquired and in respect of which another award was given by the Collector on 22nd October, 1968 (A copy of the award is Annexure ''D'' to the writ petition). The validity of no ification u/s 4(1) of the Act is being challenged on the ground that it was vague and did not contain sufficient particulars of the land likely to be acquired and it is alleged that the omission to give particulars in the notification u/s 4 had highly prejudiced the petitioners who could not prefer any objections u/s 5-A of the Act for want of notice. The notification u/s 4 is being further impeached on the ground that its substance was not published at convenient places in the locality.

In the return filed by Shri Banwari Lal Kakar, Secretary to the Government, and also in the affidavit filed by Shri M.R. Bhagat, Land Acquisition Collector it is admitted that mutation No. 2660 was entered in the mutation register but was thereafter scored out. It is alleged that in none of the revenue records, the petitioners were shown to be owners or in possession of the land in question and that was why no notice was issued to them regarding these acquisition proceedings. It is further admitted that there is a tubewell, a room and compound wall in the land in dispute. It is however, averred that the land of the petitioners was included in the 100 acres which according to the notification u/s 4, was being acquired for a public purpose. It is asserted that the substance of that notification was duly proclaimed in the locality and objections were invited from the land-owners, and considered.

The first question to be determined is : whether the respondents had deliverately, from mala fide motives, refrained from issuing any notice to the petitioners of these acquisition proceedings. In this connection, some material dates may be noted. The plot, as already mentioned, was purchased by the petitioners by a regitered deed on 20th Janurary, 1965 and the mutation in respect of that purchase was entered in the Patwari''s register on 6th November, 1967 and was later on cancelled. Notification u/s 4 was published in l.e Government Gazette on 16th June 1967, while the notification u/s 6 was published on 3rd Janurary, 1969. Subsequently, a fresh mutation with regard to the purchase was entertd in favour of the petitioners and was attested on 3rd December, 1969, that is, long after the publication of the notification u/s 6 It is thus clear that on the date of the issue and publication of the notifications under sections 4 and 6, the petitioners were not entered as owners of the plots in question in the revenue records. The mere fact that a copy of this deed was produced before the and Acquisition Collector in another proceedings, does not necessarily show that the Land Acquisition Collector or the functionaries in his office were aware of the purchase of this land by the petitioners. There is, therefore, no mala fide involved in the failure of the respondents to issue any notice to the petitioners regarding these acquisition proceedings.

The second question on which the fate of the case hinges, is, whether the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is invalid for the reason that sufficient particulars of the land likely to be acquired are not mentioned in it And, if so, has that defect been cured by the publication of the Government''s intention to acquire particular plots, at convenient places in the locality and also by the mention of all the particulars of the land to be acquired in the notification issued u/s 6 of the Act ? A reading of the impugned notification u/s 4 (Annexure ''A'') would show that the only particulars given in it of the locality and the land likely to be acquired are : that an area of 100 acres out of had bast No. 176, in village Sherpur Kalan is needed for a public purpose. It is common ground that the total area of this village is 984 acres. Since the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Others Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others, it is settled that if the notification issued and published u/s 4 does not set out sufficient information giving the notice to the owners of the lands that their properties are intended to be compulsorily acquired, then not only the notification but all the subsequent proceedings founded on it, become invalid, As obstrved in Satnam Singh v. The State of Punjab (1969) 71 P.L.R. 345 section 4 of the Act peremptorily requires the doing of two things :

(a) The publication of a notification in the official Gazette by the Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose; and

(b) public notice of the substance of such notification by the Collector at convenient places in the locality.

The chief object of these mandatory requirements is to give notice to the persons interested and thus enable them to file objections, if any, against the proposed acquisition.

If the description of the land likely to be acquired is not set out in the notification u/s 4 of the Act with sufficient precision then the very object of issuing and publishing the notification is defeated, viz. the landowners affected do not get any notice of the intended acquisition, and are thus deprived of the due opportunity of preferring objections u/s 5-A to the proposed acquisition. The departmental records that have been produced for my perusal no doubt, contain a report of the Patwari to the effect, that it was proclaimed at convenient places in the locality that inter alia Khasra Nos- 47/18, 47/19, 47/22 and 47/23 of the land were likely to be accuired It is further. true that in the second notification published u/s 6, all the survey numbers of the land including those belonging to the petitioners, have been set out. The mention of these particulars in the subsequent steps taken by the authorities do not, in my opinion, cure the fundamental defect in the notification published u/s 4(1).

8 In Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others, ), there was a note in the notification published u/s 4 (1) of the Act to the effect, that the plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector. Question arose as to whether such a note would obviate the necessity of giving a sufficient description of the locality in the notification itself? The Full Bench answered this question in the negative Kirty J. observed :

The note in a notification u/s 4(1) of the Act cannot take the place of a sufficient description of the locality itself...

Besides, why should it be held in the absence of a clear provision that the persons interested will be bound to take upon themselves an addition onerous duty of inspecting the site-plan in the office of the Collector merely to ascertain as to whether the land notified is one in respect of which they are or are not persons interested, Such an onerous and inksome duty cannot be cast on the citizens u/s 4(1) of the Act in the absence of a clear provision in that behalf....

Mention of plot numbers may not be indispensably necessary in a notification u/s 4 of the Act. But the notification itself must contain particulars adequately revealing the locality and the land proposed to be acquired therein.

It was further observed that if the notification published in the Gazette u/s 4(1) of the Act is itself defective owing to the insufficient description of the land and the locality, the second requirement of section 4(1) with regard to the publication of the substance could not be carried out in accordance with law. "It may also be poined out," said Mr, Justice Kirty.

that section 4(1) of the Act besides requiring the publication of a notification in the official Gazette, requires the Collector to cause public notice of the substance to the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. This can only be done if the locality itself is sufficiently described or identified by the notification itself. Further, the fact that public notice is to be given of the substance of the notification indicates that the notification is to contain various details which can be condensed and reduced into a substance of the notification. The notification, therefore, merely mentioning the names of the district, the pargana and the village and the approximate area cannot, be held to contain sufficient particulars and description either of the land or of the locality. If that were so, there would be nothing which could be condensed into a substance of the notification.

I am in respectful agreement with the above observations which have received the approval of the Supreme Court, also in Narendrajit Singh and another v. State of U.P. 1970 A.L.J. 70 The publication of a valid notification is a sine qua non to the exercise of any further powers under the Act. If the foundation itself is invalid, the entire edifice built on that foundation will crumble.

For the foregoing reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was invalid and so were the subsequent acquisition proceedings culminating in the award. I would, therefore, allow this writ petition with costs, quash the impugned notifications and the award with regard to the land of the petitioners Counsel''s fee Rs. 100/-.