Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Land Acquisition Act and raising new concerns in the appeal not permissible.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Challenge to notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 - Failure to get name mutated under S. 9 - Construction of house, temple, and grove on the land - Dismissal of appeal
Fact of the Case:

The appellant purchased a plot after the publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but failed to get his name mutated. The High Court found that the appellant was to blame for not getting his name mutated and observed that he was not ignorant of the land acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant should have raised concerns about the construction and compensation before the appropriate authorities, and not in the present appeal.
Issues: Challenge to notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, failure to get name mutated under S. 9, construction of house, temple, and grove on the land
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's failure to get his name mutated under S. 9 and the construction of the house, temple, and grove on the land were not valid grounds for the present appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judgment

GROVER, J. :- The main point involved in this appeal namely the challenge to the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act have been disposed of by us in the connected civil appeal No. 34 of 1972, and the decision therein will govern the decision in this case as well. The only other contention is the one which was raised as the third argument before the High Court. According to the High Court the appellant had admittedly purchased the plot in dispute from, Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan in the year 1951 i.e. subsequent to the publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Act. He took no steps to get his name mutated. When the time came for the issue of notice under S. 9 Ram Sarup and Madan Mohan were still shown in the official papers as the tenure holders of the plot in question and the individual notice required by S. 9 (3) was therefore issued to them and not to the petitioner Bhola Shankar, the present appellant. The High Court rightly observed that for this it was the appellant who himself was to blame. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed in the High Court it was clear that the public notice under Section 9 (1) was affixed at prominent places in the locality and the Hhigh Court was not inclined to believe that the petitioner remained in ignorance of the land acquisition proceedings. Nothing has been brought to our notice which would persuade us not a accept the decision of the High Court on this point. It has been urged that the appellant has put up a house and also a temple as well as there is a grove standing on the land and that he has not been paid any part of the compensation money. These are matters which the appellant ought to have agitated before the appropriate authorities and if it is open to him he may still do so. But we cannot entertain any argument or contention is respect of these points in the present appeal.

2. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1972 SC 2477

Click Here to Read the rest of this document