Vajja Koteswara Rao and others vs The Govt. of A.P. and others

Mr. Gangadhara Rao, J.—Pursuant to the notification u/s 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Prakasam District Gazette dated 7th January, 1976, the lands of the petitioners situate in Vinjanampadu village were acquired for providing house sites to Harijans. One of the survey numbers acquired is 46. The 6th petitioner, Peddi Venkateswarlu, had o-74 cents of land in that survey number. But, his name is not mentioned in that notification. Enquiry u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') had been dispensed with. In the same Gazette, notification u/s 6 of the Act was also published. Even in that notification, the name of the 6th petitioner is not mentioned. In this writ petition filed by the petitioners a number of, grounds have been taken questioning the acquisitions. First, it is stated that the substance of the notification was not published in the locality u/s 4 (1) of the Act. But, in the counter-affidavit it is stated that it was published in the village on 12th January, 1976. Therefore, that contention is rejected. Next it is contended that the enquiry u/s 5-A should not have been dispensed with. In this case the lands were acquired for providing house sites to Harijans, who live in unhygienic conditions, and it cannot be said that the matter is not urgent. Consequently, I over-rule this objection.

The more substantive contention is whether the acquisition of the land of O-74 cents belonging to the 6th petitioner is not valid, because his name is not mentioned in Section 4 (1) and 6 notifications. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the name of the 6th petitioner was, however, shown in the award proceedings. I have seen the record. Notice was not given to the 6th petitioner, under sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Award enquiry was held on 15th February, 1976 and the award was passed on 21st February, 1977. Notice of the Award was given to the persons concerned, including the 6th petitioner and he filed a petition on 30th April, 1977 stating that some other lands in the village are more suitable for the purpose. Possession of the land was taken on 31st August, 1977 and pattas were given to harijans and they were put in possession of the land on 1st September, 77. The Writ petition was filed on 12th September, 1977,

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the name of the 6th petitioner was not mentioned in Section 4 (1) or 6 notifications, and since he was not given a notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act, the acquisition of his land of o-74 cents is bad. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the names of the owners need not be mentioned in the notifications made u/s 4 (1) or 6 of the Act, and even otherwise, the 6th petitioner must be deemed to have acquislised in the proceedings and he cannot be permitted to dispute them, in view of the delay in filing the writ petition, and the subsequent events.

Section 4 (1) of the Act provides that, whenever it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, 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 convenient places in the said locality. Thereupon, it shall be lawful for any officer, and for his servants and workmen, to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality, to dig or bore into the sub-soil, to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whether the land is adapted for such purpose, to set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken etc. Section 6 provides that, when the appropriate Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made u/s 5-A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect. That declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and it shall state the district or other territorial divisions in which the land is situated, the purpose for which it is needed, Us. approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be Inspected. Sec. 7 says that when; any land has been so declared to be needed for a public purpose, a direction can be given to the Collector to take order for acquisition of the land. Thereupon, u/s 8, the Collector shall cause the land to be marked out, if it was not marked out under Sec. 4, and he shall also cause it to be measured, and a plan to be made, if no plan had been made already. Then, u/s 9, the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at convenient places, on or near the land to be taken. That notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear before him, and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land, the amount and particulars of their claims of compensation, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made u/s 8. Under sub-section (3) of Section 9, the Collect or shall also give notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested in the land. u/s 10, the Collector may also require any such person to furnish him with statement containing the names of every other person in possession any interest in the land or any part thereof, the nature of such interest etc.

Thus, the notification to be made u/s 4 (1) does not contemplate giving the names of the persons owning the land. What is to be specified in that notification is the land in the locality. When we come to the declaration u/s 6, it should specify the ''particular land'' needed for the public purpose. Section 6 does not say that the names of the persons owning the land should be mentioned. When we come to the stage of section 9, not only a public notice should be given, but also a notice should be given to the occupiers and all persons known or believed to be interested in the land. So also, a notice u/s 10 may be given to such persons. Therefore, it is not correct to state that, if names of the owners are not mentioned in Section 4 and 6 notifications, the acquisition proceedings become invalid. At the same time, it should be remembered that sufficient particulars of the land in the locality should be given in the notification u/s 4 (1), so that people who are interested in the land, may know of it. When we come to Section 6 notification ''particular land'' should be specified. Whether the necessary details of the land have been given or not in Section 4 (1) notification and Section 6 notification has to be decided on the facts of each case. I am of the the opinion that no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Ultimately, the test is whether the persons interested in the land can come to know of the proceedings. But, when Section 9 stage is reached, notice should be given to the persons interested in the land. Notice u/s 10 is optional.

In this connection I will refer to some of the relevant decisions. In Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, it was observed by the Supreme Court at page 1208 that :-

"The purpose of the notification under S. 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, is necessary digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under S.6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. What was a mere proposal u/s 4 becomes the subject matter of a definite proceeding for acquisition under the Act".

In that case that land was needed for a public purpose was not mentioned in section 4 (1) notification. The Supreme Court held that it was not absolutely necessary that, that statement should find a place in the notification, actually issued if it was found on investigation that the appropriate Government was satisfied, as a result of the investigation, that the land was needed for a public purpose.

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and Others, Wanchoo, J., speaking for himself and Mudhokar, J., observed that,

"Section 4(1) authorises the appropriate Government to notify that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. It will be noticed that in this notification the land needed is not particularised but only the locality where the land is situated is mentioned. As was observed by this Court in Babu Barkya Thakur Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, a notification under S. 4 of the Act envisages a preliminary investigation and it is only under S. 6 that the Government makes a firm declaration. The purpose of the notification u/s 4 (1) clearly is to enable the Government to take action under S. 4 (2) in the matter of survey of land to decide that particular land in the locality specified in the notification u/s 4 (1) it will decide to acquire. Another purpose of the notification under S. 4 (1) is to give opportunity to persons owning land in that locality to make objections under S. 5-A. These objections are considered by the Collector and after considering all objections he makes a report containing his recommendation on the objections to the appropriate Government whose decision on the objections is final. Section 5-A obviously contemplates consideration of all objections made to the notification under S. 4 (1) and one report thereafter by the Collector to the Government with respect to those objections. The Government then finally decides those objections and there after proceeds to make a declaration under S. 6 It (Government) has to be satisfied under S-6 after considering the report made under S. 5-A that a particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a company and it then makes a declaration to that effect under S. 6. Reading Ss. 4, 5-A and 6 together it seems to us clear that the notification under S. 4 (1) specifies merely the locality in which the land is to be acquired and then u/s 4 (2) survey is made and it is considered whether the land or part of it is adopted to the purpose for which it is required and maps are prepared of the land proposed to be taken. Then after objections u/s 5-A have been disposed of, the government has to decide what particular land out of the locality specified in the notification under S. 4 (1) it will acquire. It then makes a declaration under S. 6 specifying the particular land that is needed".

These observations were made while deciding the question whether successive notifications could be made u/s 6 in respect of different pieces of land, including in the locality specified in the notification u/s 4. The learned Judge held that only one notification could be made u/s 6. Here it may be noted that in view of this decision, Section 6 was subsequently amended by the Amendment Act, 1967 providing for different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification under Sec. 4 (1). But the observations extracted by me still hold good for the purpose of our case.

Smt. Gunwant Kaur and Others Vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and Others, is a case where the notification u/s 4 did not set out with precision the parts of the survey number belonging to different owners sought to be acquired. It merely set out the areas intended to be acquired out of the survey number, and the location of the areas could not thereby be ascertained. No plans demarcating the land to be acquired were published or made available to the owners of the land. It was contended by the appellants therein that they had no opportunity to avail themselves of their statutory right to object to the proposed acquisition u/s 5-A of the Act, and on that account the proceedings were ultra vires., J.C. Shah, J., observed :

"Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act does not expressly require the Collector to publish or make available the plans of the lands intended to be notified to the owners of the lands. But the acquiring authority is bound to publish sufficient information giving due notice to the owners of the lands that their properties are intended to be compulsorily acquired. u/s 4 (1) the appropriate Government being of the opinion that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, may publish a notification to that effect. The Collector has then to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. After the notification is issued the collector may exercise the power to enter upon and survey the land and set out the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended line of the work proposed to be made thereon. By Section 5-A any person interested in any land, notified u/s 4 as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a company may within thirty days after the issue of the notification, submit in writing to the Collector his objection to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality as the case may be.

The Collector has to give to the objector an opportunity of being heard and has, after hearing the objections and making such further inquiry as he thinks necessary, to submit the case for the decision of the appropriate Government, together with the record of the proceedings held by him and a report containing its recommendations on the objections. u/s 6 of the Act the Government may proceed to make a notification only if the Government is satisfied after considering the report of the Collector u/s 5-A that the land is needed for a public purpose. The inquiry and the report u/s 5-A may be dispensed with only if a notification is issued u/s 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act".

In Ram Sewak Vs. State of U.P. and Others, it has been held by Jagdish Sahai, J., that the law does not require that the notification u/s 4 should mention the specific plots or the names of the persons whose land is sought to be acquired, and all that is required by the section is that the notification must mention the locality in which the land is situate which is sought to be acquired. He also held that the land should be particularised in the notification, u/s 6. It requires definiteness in the matter. He observed that it is not necessary that in every case the numbers of the plots should be given or the names of the persons whose land is sought to be acquired should be given, If such particulars are given which would indicate to the public and to the persons concerned as to which property is being acquired, it would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.

In Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others, it has been held that the word ''locality'' in Section 4 (1) must be described in such a manner as to give reasonable notice to all persons in that locality whose land or whose interest in the land sought to be acquired will be or is likely to be affected. The land has to be locilised with reference to the particular place in which it is situate. This can only be done by an ade quate description of the locality. If the description of the locality is too vague or by such description a very large area is covered, the identity of the land cannot be said to have be en localised by the notification. It was also observed that whether in a given case, he locality has been sufficiently described or not may depend on the nature of the land, the area of the land proposed to be acquired, the situation or the site of the land with reference to the part of the village or the city in which the laud lies. They observed even in respect of the declaration u/s 6 of the Act, the above position holds good and the test is whether the land can be sufficiently identified or fixed without any inspection of the plan of the land, if one has already been prepared.

In Nagar Mahapalika Varanasi vs. Durga Shankar AIR 1975 AH. 99 the name of district, pargana and mouze from which the land was sought to be acquired were mentioned in the notifications. It also mentioned the approximate area and stated that a plan of the land may be inspected at the Collector''s Office. Satish Chandra and H. N. Seth, JJ., observed that the mere fact that the details of the plots or their numbers were not mentioned In the notification would not render the notification under Sections 4 and 6 invalid.

In Mahal Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1975 P&H 186 Narula C. J., and M. R. Sarma, J., held that the objection that the notification u/s 4 (1) did not contain the names of the landholders and the exact portions of land to be acquired or that the notification mistakenly referred to the former Tahsil in which the lands were situate was not the valid objection.

In view of these decisions I hold that from the mere fact that the name of the owner of the land is not mentioned in Section 4 (1) or 6 notifications, it cannot be said that the acquisition proceedings are bad. We have to see in each case whether sufficient particulars of the land have been given in the notifications under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act, so that people interested would come to know of the acquisition proceedings.

The learned Counsel of the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Bhima Rammoortey vs. State of Tamilnadu 1977 I M.L.J. 323 Mohan, J., observed that since in that case section 5 (1) notification did not show the name of the petitioner, whose land was sought to be acquired, the notification was liable to be quashed. There is no discussion on the question, and I cannot agree with his observation so broadly stated.

In this case, section 4 (1) notification shows that the entire survey number 46, (6 acres in extent) in Vinjanampadu Villege was sought to be acquired. 12 names are mentioned as owners or occupiers. Only the name of the 6th petitioner who owns 0-74 cents of land in that survey number was not mentioned. As stated by me already, enquiry u/s 5-A had been dispensed with. On the fact of this case I held that sufficient particulars are given in the notification made u/s 4 (1) and 6, to put even the 6th petitioner on notice, though his name is not specifically mentioned there in. He did not also make any grievance before, on that score. Therefore, I hold that the notifications made in this case under Sections 4 (1) and 6 of the Act are valid. It is not disputed that no individual notice was given to the 6th petitioner either u/s 9 or 10 of the Act. Only after the Award was passed, a notice was given to all the persons, including the 6th petitioner. I am of the opinion that since no notice was given to the 6th petitioner u/s 9 or 10 of the Act, before passing the Award, the Award passed in this case as against him is not valid. Therefore, I quash the proceedings only from that stage as against him alone. I direct the Land Acquisition officer to give a notice to the 6th petitioner, Peddi Venkateshwarlu u/s 9 (3) of the Act and proceed from that stage. The acquisition proceedings including the award as against the other petitioners are confirmed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to pass a separate award which respect to the interest of the 6th petitioner. Since the land in question had already been taken possession of and also given to the assignees, there is no question of giving back possession of the land to the 6th petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the 6th petitioner is guilty of latches, for after notice of award was given to him, he filed a petition on 30th April, 1977, but in that petition he did not raise any dispute regarding the extent or compensation, and the only grievance he made was that some other lands were suitable for the purpose, and there fore, he should not now be heard to say that the acquisition proceedings are void as against him. He also submitted that he is guilty of delay in filing the writ petition and, therefore, the discretionary relief should not be given to him under Article 226 of the Constitution. I do not agree with him. When he was not given notice u/s 9 or 10, the question of his not participating in the Award proceedings does not arise. Further, he was given notice in April, 1977 and he filed the writ petition in September 1977. So, I do not consider that there is such a delay on his part so as to disentitle him for the relief. Consequently, I allow this writ petition, in so far as the 6th petitioner; Peddy Venkateshwarlu is concerned, and I direct the Land acquisition Officer to give a notice to him u/s 9 (3) of the Act and proceed from that stage and pass an Award only with regard to his interest. So far as the other petitioners are concerned the writ petition is dismissed and the acquisition proceedings are confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, I direct each party to bear his costs in this writ petition.