Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(N. A. Mody and M. A. R. Khan JJ.)
SARDAR AJITSINGH - Petitioner.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and others - Relpondents.
Advocates Appeared
For petitioner - C. G. Madkholkar.
For respondent - P. G. Palshikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - INDIVIDUAL NOTICE - MANDATORY - SECTION 4 AND 6 - EXHAUSTION OF NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - PUBLIC PURPOSE - COMPULSORY DEPRIVATION - FAIR OPPORTUNITY - RULE 1 OF LAND ACQUISITION RULES - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner purchased a land in 1966 and got the mutation entry done in 1967. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891 was published in 1958 for acquisition of land for a public purpose, including a portion of the petitioner's land. In 1968, a notification under section 6 was published, acquiring the same portion of the petitioner's land. The petitioner received a notice under section 9 of the Act in November 1968, which was the first notice he received regarding the acquisition proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the service of an individual notice on the petitioner, as required by Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules, was mandatory and not merely directory. The court further held that the notification under section 6 was invalid because it was issued without serving an individual notice on the petitioner, as required by Rule 1. The court also held that the efficacy of the notification under section 4 was exhausted by the issuance of the invalid notification under section 6, and that no further or subsequent notification could be issued on the basis of the same notification under section 4.
Issues: 1. Whether the service of an individual notice on the petitioner, as required by Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules, was mandatory or merely directory. 2. Whether the notification under section 6 was valid, given that it was issued without serving an individual notice on the petitioner. 3. Whether the efficacy of the notification under section 4 was exhausted by the issuance of the invalid notification under section 6.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the service of an individual notice on the petitioner, as required by Rule 1 of the Land Acquisition Rules, was mandatory and not merely directory. The court reasoned that the purpose of the rule was to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to object to the acquisition of his land, and that this opportunity would be denied if the petitioner was not served with an individual notice. 2. The court held that the notification under section 6 was invalid because it was issued without serving an individual notice on the petitioner, as required by Rule 1. The court reasoned that the service of an individual notice was a mandatory requirement, and that the failure to serve such a notice rendered the notification invalid. 3. The court held that the efficacy of the notification under section 4 was exhausted by the issuance of the invalid notification under section 6. The court reasoned that the notification under section 4 was intended to serve as a preliminary step to the issuance of a notification under section 6, and that once a notification under section 6 was issued, the efficacy of the notification under section 4 was exhausted.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the notification under section 6 in so far as it related to the petitioner's land. The court also 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 that no further or subsequent notification could be issued on the basis of the said notification under section 4.
MODY J.- This is a petition praying for a writ under Artic1e 226 of the Constitution of India quashing certain notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1891 (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 bearing Khasra No. 198/1 of Ballarpur, taluka and district Chanda admeasuring 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 his purchase to the Patwari of Ballarpur 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 that it was 16th November 1967.
3. A notification under section 4 of the Act was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 1st Feb, 1958 for acquisition for the public purposes mentioned in the notification. Amongst the land, sought to be acquired by the notification were 47,250 sq. ft. out of the petitioner’s 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 5A 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 petition 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 is compulsory that an individual notice should have been served on the petitioner, that no such notice was served on him that the petitioner, therefore, got no opportunity whatsoever to raise objections as contemplated by section 5A, that, therefore, the notification under section 6A has not been validly issued and lastly that not only 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 re3pondents. 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 5A could not in law have been urged at the stage when the petitioner appeared in answer to that notice under section
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
