Judgment

GROVER, J. :- These two appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court must succeed on the short ground that the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not complied with. In C. A. 1192/67 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act on October 15, 1960 for acquisition of the land in dispute. Under Section 17 (4) of the Act the provisions of Sec. 5-A were dispensed with. On October 28, 1960 the notification under Section 6 was issued. The appellant was directed to be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under Section 9 on December 4, 1960. On December 5, 1960 the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceedings. 553 The petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal by the Divison Bench. Section 4 (1) of the Act is in the following terms :-

"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."

It is common ground that the Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired was situated. In other words there was no compliance whatsoever with the second part of sub-section (1) of Section 4.

2. The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of Section 4 (1) is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. We may refer in this connection to Khub Chand v. The State of Rajasthan, (1967) 1 SCR 120. In that case this Court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a person whose land is sought to be acquired of the intention of the officer to enter the land. Under Section 4 (2) such a notice is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry. Non-compliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful. In State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, (1972) C. A. 2361 of 1968, D/- 11-8-1972 (SC) no notices as required by Section 4 (1) of the Act were published in the locality till after the lapse of about 10 weeks. The question for consideration was whether the notification issued under Section 4 was a valid one. This Court held that in the case of a notification under Section 4 the law has prescribed that in addition to publication of a notice in the official gazette the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. Unless both these conditions are satisfied Section 4 of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with. The purpose behind such a notice was that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so as to prefer any objections under Section 5-A which confers a valuable right.

3. Learned counsel for the State has, however, contended that according to these decisions it is only when the persons interested can file objections under Section 5-A that the public notice of the substance of the notification under Section 4 (1) by the Collector would be necessary whereas in the present case the applicability of the provisions of Section 5-A have been dispensed with under Section 17 (4) of the Act tat the same time the notification under Section 4 (1) was issued. It is wholly unnecessary that the interested parties should have the requisite information of the acquisition proceedings as they are not entitled to file objections under Section 5-A. We are unable to accept such a contention. In our judgment the provisions of Section 4 (1) cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another. Section 4 (1) does not contemplate any