2007 Supreme(SC) 641

2007(4) Supreme 832
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Patna, JJ.
Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.—Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.— Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2007
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21519 of 2005]
Decided on : 02-05-2007

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sections 4, 5A, 6 — Validity of land acquisition proceedings — Ground of failure to afford on opportunity to appellant company to file objection and also not giving personal hearing to it u/s. 5A of the Act — Notification issued u/s. 4 of the Act for acquisition of land — Publication of notification in two newspapers — Notification was also published on the site — special Land Acquisition Officer held mandatory enquiry u/s. 5A of the Act — Section 6 declaration was published in daily newspaper and also on site — Subsequently a corrigendum was issued to the notification u/s. 4 of the Act which was published in two daily newspapers — Appellant company had not filed any objection u/s. 5A to the acquisition proceedings consequent to issuance of notification u/s. 4 of the Act — Adequate and reasonable opportunity was given to interested persons including the appellant-company — Respondents have followed the prescribed statutory procedures laid down in the Act — High Court was justified in dismissing writ proceedings challenging validity of acquisition proceedings.

       Held : The essential requirements of publication of primary notification under Section 4 of the Act is to indicate the intention of the appropriate Government that the land in any locality is likely to be needed for any public purpose and for achieving the said purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality and the Collector shall call public notices of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. In the present case, as noticed above, the respondents have wholly complied with the requirements of the provisions of law. The appellant-company has not brought on record any iota of evidence to show that the above-named newspapers.