Ravi Shankar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

T.S. Doabia, J.

This is petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Challenge is made to the notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') Notification u/s 4 of the Act makes a declaration dispensing with the compliance of section 5-A and thus obviating the need to hear objection. This was issued on 18th April, 1984. This is Annexure P-4. Notification u/s ft was issued on 25th May, 1084. Copy of this notification has since been placed on the record as Annexure P-5. The total area which was subject-matter of this acquisition was 4.505 hectares. It is stated that the petitioner acquired the knowledge about the acquisition proceedings when notice u/s 9 of the Act came to be served on the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid notification on the ground that the requirement of law in the matter of publication of the notification in the locality was not adhered to and as a matter of fact there is complete absence of publication of the notification in the locality in question. The requisite averments are made in para 7 of the writ petition. This reads as under :-

That no individual notice was given to the petitioner of either of the two Notifications. Till this date, local publicity as required by Sec.4 of the Act has not been done in the area or vicinity thereof where the land is situated. Either of the notifications does not make any reference to the Mill, office premises, residential quarters, well and the wire fencing winch stand over the land. The notifications do not mention the locality where the land is situated with reference to the Municipal Ward Numbers or name.

It is also contended by the petitioner that the State authorities have not applied their mind to the situation. The area in question is located within the municipal limits but in the notification Annexure P-6 land is described as being located in a village. It is further contended that the fact that the land has been identified by khasra numbers again shows that there is a lack of application of mind, because as per the petitioner the land is within the municipal limits of Ashok Nagar and should have been identified with reference to municipal ward numbers. The petitioner also contended that this was not a case where provisions of Section 5-A could be dispensed with. The purpose for which the acquisition was made was not such a purpose, which could not brook delay of for more than 30 days.

The return filed by the respondent State has been perused. The State has mentioned that the notification was merely published in the official Gazette. The averment with regard to the fact that the notification was not published in the locality has not been denied.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court reported as. Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, and Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal,

In Narinderjit Singh''s case (supra) it has been categorically mentioned that the requirement to publish the notification in the locality is a must. If this is not done, the acquisition proceedings would stand vitiated. In this regard the Supreme Court observed as under :-

The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of Section 4(1) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. We may refer in this connection to Khub Chand and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, In that case this Court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a person whose land is sought to be acquired of the intention of the officer to enter the land. u/s 4(2) such a notice is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry. Non-compliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful. In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib. C.A. 2361 of 1968, D/- 11.8.1972 (SC) no notices as required by Section 4(1) of the Act were published in the locality till after the lapse of about 10 weeks. The question for consideration was whether the notification issued u/s 4 was a valid one. this Court held that in the case of a notification u/s 4 the law has prescribed that in addition to publication of a notice 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 Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with. The purpose behind such a notice was that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so as to prefer any objections u/s 5-A which confers a valuable right.

The fact that a declaration of urgency has been made and requirement of hearing objection has been dispensed with was also taken note of. It was held that notwithstanding the fact that the State has dispensed with requirement of hearing objection that would furnish no ground to the State authorities to not to publish the notification in the locality. It was observed in para 3 of Narinderjit Singh''s case (supra):

...We are unable to accept such a contention. In our judgment the provisions of Section 4(1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. Section 4(1) does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power u/s 17(4) the appropriate government directs that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability of Sect. 5-A. It lays down in unequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be simultaneously done u/s 4(1), i.e., a notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and the Collector has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated. The scheme of Section 4 is that after the steps contemplated under sub-section (1) have been taken the officer authorised by the Government can do the various acts set out in sub-section (2). It is not required u/s 17(4) of the principal Act that when a notification u/s 4(1) is issued the direction should be made simultaneously if the State Government so desires. Such an order or direction be made even at a later stage. The effect of the direction made u/s 17(4) is that a declaration can be made u/s ft in respect of the land at any time after the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) and thereafter the Collector can take possession. But as mentioned before in a given case the appropriate government may not consider it necessary to take action u/s 17(4) simultaneously with the notification u/s 4(1) and it may choose to invoke its provisions only at a later stage in view of any urgency that may crop up. Thus the construction of Section 4(1) cannot be made to depend upon any action or direction which the State Government may choose to make u/s 17(4) of the principal Act. In out opinion Section 4(I) has to be read as an integrated provision which contains two conditions; first is that the notification in the official gazette must be published and the second is that the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given. These two conditions must be satisfied for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1).

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Narindrajit Singh and Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, it is a apparent that there is complete failure on the part of the State to publish the notification in the locality. There is thus no alternative but to quash the notifications issued under sections 4 and ft of the Act. The subsequent proceedings taken thereunder are also quashed.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to Annexure P-6 wherein respondent No. 4 intimated to the State Government that it is not in a position to go ahead with the housing project and the same may be dropped for the time being. This shows that there was absolutely no urgency in proceeding with acquisition proceedings. The need was not so urgent that it could not brook delay of 30 days. As the authority, i.e., respondent No. 4 for whose benefit the land is being acquired has expressed no urgency, this furnishes an additional ground for quashing of the acquisition proceedings. This petition is allowed. The notifications Annexures P-4 and P-5 and further proceedings taken in pursuance thereof are quashed. No costs.