Compliance with Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is crucial, and failure to issue notice to the reflected landowner can invalidate the notifications under Sections 4 and 6.

ORDER :

Ashok Bhan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6-1-1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WA No. 7267 of 1996 wherein and whereunder the Division Bench has upheld the judgment and order passed by the Single Judge of the same High Court in WP No. 11608 of 1987 quashing the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") issued on 31-7-1986 and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 2-4-1987.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

The State of Karnataka issued a notification dated 31-7-1986 proposing to acquire 48 acres of land including the land in Survey No. 90/3 for the purpose of formation of sites for the benefit of the Indian Institute of Science Employees' House Building Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore, the appellant herein under Section 4 of the Act. In the said notification name of Thammanna is shown as the owner of the land in question, who had died in the year 1978. In the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, the survey number is mentioned as 91/3.

3. Respondent 2, namely, T. Muniraju son of Thammanna (deceased), filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the facts stated before him, came to the conclusion that there was non-compliance with Section 5-A of the Act, inasmuch as no notice had been issued to Respondent 2. Notice had been issued to Thammanna only who had already died. In the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act the land which belonged to Respondent 2 had not been mentioned. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that Survey No. 91/3 instead of 90/3 has been mentioned due to a typographical error or printing mistake, was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition and quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act insofar as it related to the land measuring 1 acre, 32 guntas in Survey No. 90/3 belonging to Respondent 2. The Division Bench in writ appeal has upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Counsel for the parties have been heard.

5. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the High Court, inasmuch as, admittedly, notice had been issued to Thammanna, who had already died, inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act. After the death of Thammanna, land had been mutated in the name of his son i.e. Respondent 2 whose name was reflected in the revenue record as owner of the land. Since the name of Respondent 2 had already been reflected in the revenue record, notice of acquisition should have been issued to him. As notice was not issued to him, Respondent 2 has been deprived of his valuable right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act.

6. It is well established that a notification under Section 4 of the Act is a preliminary notification making it known to the landowners of the intention of the Government to compulsorily acquire the land notified therein. The landowners can file objections under Section 5-A of the Act (unless dispensed with by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act) to the proposed acquisition. The landowners are required to be given a personal hearing as well. After hearing the landowners and considering the objections filed to the proposed acquisition, final notification under Section 6 of the Act is issued by the Government. While issuing the final notification, the Government can leave a part of the land from the proposed acquisition or acquire the entire land notified in the notification issued under Section 4. The land notified under Section 6 of the Act would be the acquired land. In the notification issued under Section 4, the land sought to be acquired was in Survey No. 90/3 belonging to Respondent 2, whereas the same does not find