The State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs S. Parvathy

C. Shivappa, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.9.1994 passed in W.P.No. 16616 of 1994. That respondent No. 1

issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to, in short, as ""the Act). The notification was issued in

G.O.Ms.No. 188 dated 16.6.1993 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 21.7.1993, subsequent to the paper

publication dated 18.7.1993. The learned single Judge held that notification u/s 4(1) should be first published in the Gazette and then only the Ors.

mode of publications have to be followed. In that view of the matter quashed the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act.

The question for consideration is :-

Whether the publication of notification in the local newspaper before it was published in the Gazette invalidates the acquisition proceedings initiated

u/s 491 of the Act?

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the writ appeal was based upon the wordings contained in Section 4(1) of the Act.

Section 4(1) reads thus:-

Publication of preliminary notification and powers of offers thereup (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 or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official

Gazette and in two daily newspaper circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause

public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and

the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification.

The expression ""official gazette"" occurs earlier to the circulation the newspaper and publication in the locality. The language used in Section 4(1),

however, is ""a notification to that effect shall be published"", which in the context suggests that the term implies a formal expression or record of the

decision of the Government that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. Having recorded its decision the Government

takes steps for publishing its decision in the manner prescribed u/s 4(1). Though notification may be despatched by the Government simultaneously

to the three agencies concerned with the publication of notification of substance thereof, the dates of actual publication of the notification may

differ. It is this contingency that the legislature appears to have had in mind and consequently it added the words ""the last of such dates..."" in

Section 4(1). These words are explicit and unambiguous. They obviously mean whichever is the last of the dates of publication of the notification or

giving of public notice shall be treated as the date of the publication of the notification. The words also irresistably indicate that the Legislature did

not rule out the possibility of publication of the notification in the three modes not taking place strictly chronologically, that is, in the sequence in

which they are mentioned in Section 4(1). Strict adherence to the sequence in which the modes of publication appear in Section 4(1) is wholly

discounted by the language employed in Section 4(1) vide the words ''the last of the dates''. Had the legislative intent been to make the sequence

mandatory it would simply have stated that the date of the giving of public notice by the Collector shall be treated as the date of the publication of

the notification. What is necessary is the continuity of action and such action should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. The character of

notice, mode of service may be fixed by statute and in such case compliance must, of course, be had with the statutory requirement. Courts are not

inclined to be as rigid in their requirement as to the manner of service of notice because notice is meant only to warn the land owner and the public

at large that designated portion of the land is likely to be taken under acquisition proceedings. Mere formal defect in publication which only takes

the character of irregularity does not vitiate the validity of the notification published in the Gazette.

An identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Sundara Naicker Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, and this Court

has taken the view that the notification in the official gazette precedes the notification in the newspaper or the publication of the notification in the

newspaper precedes the gazette notification, matters very little as long as it is the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public

notice being referred to as the date of publication of the notification, which alone would determine the date of publication of the notification. In that

view of the matter held that M. Rajagopal and Others Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Another, and Muthukaruppan and Others Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu and Another, do not lay down law correctly and overruled both the decisions.

In Venkataswamappa Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), the Apex Court at para 5 held thus:-

It is true that normally publication in the newspaper 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

newspapers. This is only an irregularity in the procedural steps required to be taken under/the Act. It does not vitiate the validity of the notification

published in the Gazette on January (sic).

In view of the decision of the Apex Court and that of this court cited supra, we hold that the error, if at all, in publishing the notification in the

newspaper earlier to the Gazette notification, since no prejudice is caused to the person interested and he will have reasonable time to putforth his

grievance, at best, it can be termed purely a formal defect or an irregularity which is not mandatory and does not invalidate the acquisition

proceedings initiated u/s 4(1) of the Act. In the view, we have taken in conformity with the ratio set out earlier, the appeal is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, it is allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside.