1. Land acquisition under Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act 1953 — Challenge to validity of proceedings due to non-compliance with mandatory public notice requirements under Section 4. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 169
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I. AND J.M. SHELAT, J.
Khub Chand and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1964,
D/-22-8- 1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Sarjoo Prasad, Senior Advocate Mr. 4. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. G. C. Kasliwal, .Advocate-General, for the State of Rajasthan, (M/s. B. P. Maheshwari and R. N. Sachthey Advocates, with him), for Respondent s.
Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.P.MAHESHVARI, G.C.KASLIVAL, R.N.SACH, SARJU PRASAD
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.P.MAHESHVARI, G.C.KASLIVAL, R.N.SACH, SARJU PRASAD
The requirement to provide public notice of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, is mandatory. Non-compliance renders the entry of officers unlawful and the subsequent land acquisition proceedings void.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 - Section 4 - Publication of preliminary notification - Public notice - Mandatory nature - The requirement that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality is mandatory. Statutes conferring power on the Government to compulsorily acquire lands must be strictly construed. The term "shall" is mandatory unless such interpretation leads to absurd or inconvenient consequences or is at variance with the intent of the legislature. The object of the notice under Section 4 is to provide intimation to the owner before an officer enters the land, which is distinct from the purpose of the notice under Section 5(2) which provides particulars of the land. Non-compliance with this mandatory direction renders the notification void and subsequent acquisition proceedings null and void. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired for public purposes. Notifications were issued under Sections 4, 5(2), and 6 of the Act. However, the mandatory requirement of giving public notice of the substance of the Section 4 notification at convenient places in the locality was not complied with. The land owners challenged the jurisdiction of the acquiring officer and the validity of the awards. The High Court held the provision was mandatory but dismissed the petition on the ground that the objection was raised belatedly.
Findings of Court:
The provision for public notice under Section 4 is mandatory. The failure to comply with this condition makes the entry of officers onto the land unlawful and the entire acquisition proceeding void. The objection cannot be deemed belated when the parties questioned the jurisdiction from the outset and refused to participate in the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the requirement to give public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act is mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance with this requirement invalidates the subsequent acquisition proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: In statutes involving compulsory acquisition of land, the word "shall" is to be interpreted as mandatory. The public notice under Section 4 is a condition precedent for the lawful exercise of the power of entry under Section 4(2). Since the purpose of Section 4 (notice of entry) is different from Section 5(2) (particulars of land), compliance with both is necessary. Failure to provide the Section 4 public notice renders the proceedings void.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether public notice under Section 4 is directory or mandatory — Whether the Land Acquisition Officer became functus officio — Whether multiple awards for one notification are void. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Statutes for compulsory land acquisition require strict construction — Public notice under Section 4 is a condition precedent for lawful entry and is mandatory. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
4. Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of giving public notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act renders the acquisition proceedings void. (Para 7 )
5. Writ of prohibition granted restraining the respondents from giving effect to the awards — High Court order set aside and petition allowed. (Para 11 )
6. Is the requirement to give public notice under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act mandatory or directory?
It is mandatory. The term shall in Section 4 indicates a mandatory requirement, and the provision serves as a necessary condition precedent for the lawful entry of officers onto the land. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. Does the subsequent notification under Section 5(2) cure the failure to provide public notice under Section 4?
No. Section 4 and Section 5(2) serve different purposes; Section 4 notifies the owner of the intention to enter the land, while Section 5(2) provides particulars of the land to be acquired. (Para 6 )
8. What is the legal effect of failing to comply with the mandatory public notice requirement under Section 4?
If the mandatory direction to give public notice is not complied with, the notification issued under Section 4 is void, and all subsequent land acquisition proceedings taken pursuant to it are equally void. (Para 7 )
9. Can a challenge to the jurisdiction of a tribunal be dismissed as belated if the party questioned the jurisdiction from the outset?
No. Where a party questions the jurisdiction of the tribunal from the beginning and refuses to participate in the proceedings, the objection cannot be dismissed as belated. (Para 9 )
Judgement
SUBBA RAO, CJI. : This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. By a registered sale-deed, dated December 10, 1958, the appellants purchased the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 158 and 182/2 situated in village Sangaria in Tehsil Hanumangarh in the State of Rajasthan. On February 14, 1957, the Government of Rajasthan published a notification No. 7(104) Rev (A), dated October l9, 1956 under .S. 4 of the RAJASTHAN LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1953, hereinafter called the Act, to the effect that the said land, along with others, was needed or likely to be needed for the public purpose of laying township and orchards. On January 9, 1958, another notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette under S 5 (2) of the Act. On February 3, 1959,a further notification under S. 6 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette in respect of the said land. The Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of the power under S. 3 (c) of the Act, issued a notification , dated September 10, 1955, appointing the Deputy Director of Colonistation, Suratgarh Division with headquarters at Hanumangarh , to perform the functions of a collector under the Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction. On July 30, 1959, these said Government published a notification, dated June 4, 1959, in modification of the previous notification, appointing the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, then having head quarters at Bikaner to perform the said functions within the districts of Ganganager, Bikaner and Jaisalmer . Notwithstanding the said notification, the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh, exercising the functions under the Act, continued the acquisition proceedings. The appellants filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the said Deputy Director to proceed with the enquiry and there after they did not take part in the proceedings. On December 11, 1959, after making expert enquiries, the said Deputy Director made an award which for convenience of reference may be referred to as Award No. 1. In the said award, the appellants, land was valued at Rs. 614 per bigha. But on June 27,1960, the said Deputy Collector made another award, hereinafter referred to as Award No. 2, setting aside Award No. 1. and giving compensation to the appellants, land at the rate of Rs. 442 instead of at Rs.614 per bigha. The appellants filed the writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the validity of the said proceedings.
3. The contentions raised by the parties before the High Court need not be particularised as they are apparent from the following findings given by it : (1) The provision of S. 4 in the Act , namely, that a public notice of the substance of the notification should be given at convenient places in the locality of the land in dispute, is mandatory and the Land Acquisition Officer did not comply with the same; but as the objection raised by the appellants in that regard was belated it could not be allowed to be taken at that stage. (2) The direction given by the Rajasthan Government to the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, to exercise the powers of the Land Acquisition Officer under the Act was not withdrawn, either expressly or by necessary implication, by the notification dated, June 4, 1959, by which the Deputy Director of Colonisatin, Rajasthan Canal Project, was authorised to perform the functions of Collector within the three districts mentioned therein.(3) Award No. 1 dated December 11, 1959, which related to Khasra No. 158 had become final, and it could not be altered by Award No. 2 in regard to the said Khasra number. In effect and substance, the High Court held that both the awards were valid but Award No. 2 should be confined only to Kharsa No. 182/2. In the result, the petition was dismisses. Hence the app
