The service of an individual notice on the owner of the land sought to be acquired is mandatory before issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the notification under Section 4 is exhausted after the issuance of a notification under Section 6, and no further notification can be issued based on the same notification under Section 4.

Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 5-A, 6 - NOTIFICATION - INDIVIDUAL NOTICE - MANDATORY - EXHAUSTION OF NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 - SUCCESSIVE NOTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 6 - INVALID.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging non-service of individual notice before issuing the notification under Section 6, rendering it invalid. The petitioner argued that the notification under Section 4 was exhausted and no further notification could be issued based on it.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the service of an individual notice on the owner of the land sought to be acquired is mandatory before issuing a notification under Section 6. The Court relied on Rule 1 framed under Section 55(1) of the Act, which requires the Collector to issue notices to parties interested in the land. The Court held that the non-service of an individual notice rendered the notification under Section 6 invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the service of an individual notice on the owner of the land sought to be acquired is mandatory before issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? 2. Whether the notification under Section 4 is exhausted after the issuance of a notification under Section 6, and no further notification can be issued based on the same notification under Section 4?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the service of an individual notice on the owner of the land sought to be acquired is mandatory before issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court relied on Rule 1 framed under Section 55(1) of the Act, which requires the Collector to issue notices to parties interested in the land. The Court held that the non-service of an individual notice rendered the notification under Section 6 invalid. 2. The Court held that the notification under Section 4 is exhausted after the issuance of a notification under Section 6, and no further notification can be issued based on the same notification under Section 4. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593, which held that once a declaration under Section 6 is made, the notification under Section 4(1) is exhausted and no further notification can be issued under Section 6 based on the same notification under Section 4.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, declared the notification under Section 6 in so far as it related to the petitioner's land to be illegal and set it aside. The Court further declared that the efficacy of the notification under Section 4 in so far as it related to the petitioner's land had been exhausted and no further or subsequent notification under Section 6 could be issued on the basis of the said notification under Section 4.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is a petition praying for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing certain notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The State of Maharashtra the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, the Collector, Chanda and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chanda are the respondents.

2. The petitioner by a purchase deed purchased a land khasra no. 198/1 of Ballarpur, taluka and district Chanda ad measuring 2.45 acres from one Sadashiv Krishnaji Khanke. The deed is dated 29th January 1966 and it was registered on the same day. On the same day, the petitioner gave intimation of the purchase to the Patwari of Ballapur to effect mutation entries. It is stated in the petition and not denied in the counter - affidavit that such a mutation entry was made towards the end of 1967, the exact date is not mentioned, but we are informed across the Bar was 16th November 1967.

3.A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 1 - 2- 1968 for acquisition for the public purposes mentioned in the notification. Amongst the lands sought to be acquired by the notification were 47, 250 sq. ft. out of the petitioners said land bearing khasra no. 198/1. On 22nd August, 1968, a notification was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette under Section 6 of the Act and amongst the lands acquired thereunder and the lands mentioned therein were 47,045 sq.ft. out of the petitioners land bearing khasra no. 198/1. In the second week of November 1968, the petitioner received a notice from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent no. 4, which states that it is a notice under clause (8) of Section 9 of the Act. The notice bears no date. It gave notice to the petitioner to appear before the fourth respondent on 26th November 1968. It is the petitioners case that it was from this notice that the petitioner came to know for the first time about the said acquisition proceedings in respect of his said land. The petitioner appeared before the fourth respondent in pursuance of the said notice and raised various contentions. One of such contentions was that he had received no notice or an individual notice after the notification under Section 4 was issued and he had therefore been unable to raise objections as contemplated by Section 5-A of the Act and that the notification under Section 6 having been issued in such circumstances was invalid.

4. The petitioner has raised several contentions in the petitions in support of his case that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are invalid. At the hearing, the petitioner has however, confined his case to one argument. That argument is that it compulsory that an individual notice should have been served on the petitioner, that no such notice was served on him, that that petitioner, therefore, got no opportunity whatsoever to raise objections as contemplated by Section 5-A, that, therefore, the notification under Section 6 in so far as his land is concerned be set aside but that the notification under Section 4 also in so far as it affects his land should be quashed and set aside. In view of the fact that only this contention has been urged by the petitioner, it is unnecessary for us to refer, and we, therefore, do not refer, to the other facts and contentions contained in the petition and in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner had urged all his contentions before the fourth respondent when he appeared in answer to the said notice under Section 9. It is, however, not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the objections which the petitioner can urge under Section 5 - A could not in law have been urged at the stage when the petitioner appeared in answer to that notice under Section 9, that is, after the Section 6 notification was issued. It is, not disputed that an opportunity to urge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1970 Supreme(Bom) 148

Cases Referred (1)