AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ramalingam, J.—The petitioner is the owner of 7 cents of land in R.S. No. 15/3B2 of Salamedu village. Villupuram Taluk. After
dispensing with the enquiry under S.5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the ""Act"") by invoking the urgency provision under
S.17 of the Act, a notification under S.4(1) and a declaration under S.6 of the Act were gazetted on 28-10-1981. An errata was published on 27-
1-1992 and a further errata was published on 5-5-1982. The petitioner was served with a notice of an enquiry to be held under Ss 9(3) and 10 of
the Act and she participated in that enquiry on 2-9-1982 wherein she claims to have raised objections to the acquisition. Thereafter, the Land
Acquisition Officer gave an order on 2-9-1982. Soon thereafter, this writ petition was filed on 20-9-1982 praying for a writ of certiorarified
mandamus to quash the S.4(1) Notification and S.6 declaration dated 28-10-1981, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
In support of the petitioner''s case three contentions were raised. The first is that there was no great urgency necessitating the invocation of
urgency provision and the dispensing with the enquiry under S.5A of the Act was not correct. Secondly it is contended that since lands are sought
to be acquired at the instance of Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation Limited which is a company within the meaning of that word. Part VII of
the Act alone ought to have been followed and the acquisition under part II is not valid. Lastly it is submitted that the mandatory provisions of
S.4(1) of the Act regarding local publication not having been strictly complied with, the acquisition is wholly vitiated.
Since the lands are sought to be acquired for public purpose and as the entire amount of compensation is to come out of public funds, the
acquisition under part II is valid although the beneficiary may be a company.
The question whether the enquiry under S.5A could be dispensed with by invoking the urgency provision would depend upon the facts of each''
case and it is not possible to lay down any emphatic criterion as to under what circumstances it could be dispensed with or cannot be dispensed
with. That question need not detain us for the time being because the third submission mead by the petitioner is well founded. That submission is
about the noncompliance with S.4(1) of the Act as it then stood. That section reads as follows:�
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 the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such
notification to be given at the convenient places in the said locality
The provisions of S.4(1) have been held to be mandatory in more than one decision. No part of it can be dispensed with. Therefore, there is a
duty cast on the authority not only to publish a notification in the official gazette but also to cause public notice of the substance of such notification
to be given at convenient places in the locality. The contention of the petitioner is that there was no publication of the substance of 4(1) notification
in the locality. On this aspect, after verification of the records, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the substance
of the notification was not published in the locality. The explanation of the learned Additional Government Pleader is that the said publication would
serve no purpose when an enquiry under S.5A has been decided to be dispensed with According to the learned Additional Government Pleader,
the object of publishing the substance of the notification at convenient places is to enable the public to state their respective view points in an
enquiry to be held under S.5A of the Act and when such an enquiry is not contemplated and has been dispensed with, no useful purpose would be
served by publishing the substance of the notification in the locality This argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader, though attractive,
has not been accepted by the Supreme Court.
In Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal, the Supreme Court has held as follows :
It could not be urged that since the underlying purpose behind publication of a notice in the locality is to be given an opportunity to the person
interested in the land to object to the acquisition, wherein a case, the purpose is achieved as in the instant case the petitioner having filed his
objections, the failure to publish the substance of the notification in the locality need not be treated fatal and cannot invalidate the proceedings. The
submission as presented is very persuasive and but for binding precedents, the Supreme Court would have accorded considerable attention to it.
But the Supreme Court would not whittle down a mandate of legislation recognised by a long line of decisions solely depending upon the facts of a
given case. Further the submission is predicated upon an assumption that the sole purpose behind publication of substance of notification in locality
is to make requirement of S.5A functionally effective. The assumption is not well founded. (Para 13)
Assuming that a notification in the Official Gazette is a formal expression of the decision of the Government, The decision of the Government is
hardly relevant, unless it takes the concrete shape and form by publication in the Official Gazette. Where a decision of the Government to be
effective and valid has to be notified in the Government Gazette, the decision itself does not become effective unless a notification in the official
Gazette follows Therefore, assuming that notification is a formal expression of a decision of the Government to acquire land, unless the decision is
notified in the Government Gazette by an appropriate notification, the proceedings for acquisition cannot be said to have been initiated and the
decisions would remain a paper decision. S.4(1) further requires that ""the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to
be given at convenient places in the said locality"". The expression ""such notification"" in the latter part of S.4(1) and sequence of events therein
enumerated would clearly spell out that first the Government should reach a decision to acquire land, then publish a notification under S.4(1) and
simultaneously or within a reasonable time from the date of the publication of the notification cause a notice to be published containing substance of
such notification meaning thereby that notification which is published. Obviously therefore, there cannot be a publication in the locality prior to the
issuance of the notification
(Para 16)
In the instant case when the admitted facts show that the substances of the notification had not been published at convenient places in the
locality, the very notification made under S.4(1), dated 28-10-1981 loses its efficacy for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of that
section. The resultant position is that the petitioner is entitled to succeed and consequently all proceedings taken for acquiring the petitioner''s land
of an extent of 7 cents in S. No. 15/3B2 in Salamedu village, Villupuram Taluk, will stand quashed.
Though the beneficiary is not a necessary party to a writ petition of this nature as held by a Full Bench of this Court, yet, by reason of the fact
that the beneficiary has been impleaded as a party, the learned counsel for the second respondent was heard. He would submit that the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of Laches. He would state that the petitioner, in any event, become aware of the acquisition
proceedings when she received notice of enquiry under Ss. 9(3) and 10 of the Act to be held on 21-8-1932. Thereafter she filed this writ petition
in September, 1982 and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed not only on the ground of laches but also on the ground of acquiescence.
The learned counsel for the second respondent relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh and others v. Union of India and
others 1981-3-SCC. 628. In that decision, the Supreme Court noticed that the writ petition had been filed 6 years after the notification under
S.4(1) was published and 5 years after the award was passed. It was also noticed that the award having become final had been acted upon for
quite a few years. It was in that view the writ petition in that case was dismissed on the ground of laches. But, in the instant case, as stated earlier,
the petitioner had approached this court within one month of the date on which she became aware of the acquisition proceedings. Apart from that,
even at the time when she participated in the enquiry under S.9 (3). According to the petitioner, she had raised her objections to the acquisition.
Therefore, there is neither laches nor acquiescence of which the petitioner may be accused of. Therefore, the objections raised by the second
respondent are rejected as unsustainable. In the result, the writ petition will stand allowed. The second respondent will pay the costs of the writ
petition. Counsel''s fee Rs. 500.