Back
High Court Of Delhi
MOHAMMAD SWALLEHIN - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - Respondent
Civil 143 of 1969
Decided On : 11/23/1976
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTIONS 5-A, 6, 21 - CANCELLATION OF NOTIFICATION - NOTICE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS - VALIDITY - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, SECTION 21 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners' lands were notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on April 9, 1964. They filed objections under Section 5-A on May 15, 1964, but the Government issued a notification under Section 5 on November 30, 1964, without hearing them. The petitioners challenged this action in a writ petition (C. W. No. 123 of 1968). The Government realized its mistake and filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on December 9, 1968, seeking to quash the acquisition proceedings subsequent to the Section 4 notification. The court directed the Government to give a hearing to the petitioners under Section 5-A. On January 11, 1969, the Land Acquisition Collector issued a notice to the petitioners for a hearing on January 14, 1969. The petitioners did not appear, and the Collector submitted a report recommending the dismissal of their objections. On January 15, 1969, a corrigenda was published in the Official Gazette, deleting the petitioners' lands from the notification under Section 6. On January 16, 1969, a fresh declaration was made under Section 6, comprising the same lands. The petitioners challenged the second declaration in a writ petition (C. W. No. 123 of 1969).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation of the notification under Section 6 on January 11, 1969, was invalid because it was not published in the gazette until January 15, 1969. The petitioners did not know that their lands had been denotified until then, and they were not supposed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector until they were so informed. The court also held that the fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969, under Section 6 was invalid because there was no valid notification under Section 6 at the time it was issued. The court further held that the Government could not cancel the notification under Section 6 with retrospective effect under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government could issue a notice for the hearing of the petitioners' objections under Section 5-A without informing them that the Government had decided to cancel the notification under Section 6 dated November 30, 1964? 2. Whether the cancellation of the notification under Section 6 on January 11, 1969, was valid? 3. Whether the fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969, under Section 6 was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Government could not issue a notice for the hearing of the petitioners' objections under Section 5-A without informing them that the Government had decided to cancel the notification under Section 6 dated November 30, 1964, because the petitioners were not supposed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector until they were informed of the cancellation. 2. The cancellation of the notification under Section 6 on January 11, 1969, was invalid because it was not published in the gazette until January 15, 1969. The petitioners did not know that their lands had been denotified until then, and they were not supposed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector until they were so informed. 3. The fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969, under Section 6 was invalid because there was no valid notification under Section 6 at the time it was issued.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the second declaration dated January 16, 1969, published on January 18, 1969.
( 1 ) ON April 9, 1964, the respondent Union of India issued a notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) in respect of the petitioners lands situated in Malikpur Chhawani, Delhi, admeasuring 194 bighas-19 biswas comprising field Nos. 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358 and 359. On May 15, 1964, the petitioners filed objections under S. 5-A of the Act. Without hearing the petitioners on their objections the Government issued a notification under S. 5 on November 30, 1964.
( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this action of the Government the petitioners brought a writ petition on January 30, 1968 (C. W. No. 123 of 1968 ). Their main complaint in that case was that no notification under S. 6 of the Act could be issued without hearing them on their objections as required by the mandatory provisions of S. 5-A of the Act. The Government realised its mistake. Accordingly, on December 9, 1968, the Government made an application to the court (CM 2522- J of 1968 ). This application was styled as one under s. 151, Code of Civil Procedure. In this application it was conceded that "no notice was issued to the petitioners for hearing of those objections and the mandatory provisions of S. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act have not been complied with. " And that "the acquisition proceedings subsequent. to the issue of S. 4 notification may be quashed. Since there is no defect in the notification dated April 9, 1964 under s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same may be kept intact. "
( 3 ) THIS application came up for hearing before V. S. Deshpande, J. on January 10, 1969. He passed the following order:
"heard. The respondents can give a hearing to the petitioners under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, without waiting for the orders of the Court solicited by the application. In the meantime the respondents may file a return within a week, so that the case may be heard soon thereafter. "
( 4 ) ON the very next day, that is, January 11, 1969, the Land Acquisition Collector issued a notice to the petitioners requiring them to appear before him on January 14, 1969. This is what the notice said:
"you are hereby informed that the objections received in respect of acquisition of land for the above purpose will be heard on 14-1-1969 at 10 A. M. You may, therefore. attend this office at the appointed time and date. "
( 5 ) NOW the case of the Government is that the three petitioners intentionally avoided the service of notice and therefore notice was affixed on their last known residence on January 11, 1969 itself.
( 6 ) ON January 14, 1969, no one appeared on behalf of the pcti- tioners before the Collector. He submitted his report on January 14, 1969. He recommended that the objections of the petitioners dated May 15, 1964 may be dismissed. The report of the Collector, it is said, was placed before the Lt. Governor through Mr. R. C. Mathur.
( 7 ) ON January 15, 1969, a notification dated January 11, 1969, was published in the Official Gazette Extraordinary Part IV. It was captioned as a corrigenda . There it was said that the petitioners lands measuring 117 bighas--3 biswas out of the total area of 194 bighas- 19 biswas and bearing field Nos. 354, 355, 357, 358 and 359 arc "hereby deleted". The result of this notification was that the original notification dated November 30, 1964, under s. 6 stood cancelled in respect of the field numbers specified in the notification.
( 8 ) ON January 16, 1969, a fresh declaration was made under s. 6 comprising these very field numbers, namely, 354, 355, 357, 358 and 359 measuring 117 bighas-3 biswas of the petitioners lands. This notification was actually published in the official gazette on January 18, 1969. The petitioner brought the present writ petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution on February 22, 1969, challenging the second declaration dated January 16, 1969 published on January 18, 1969. After they had brought the present writ petition they moved the court for
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
