1992 Supreme(Raj) 980

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.B.Sharma, J.
Geeta Devi Ghatiwala and others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5665 of 1991, 4807 of 1991, 5236 of 1991, 5255 of 1991, 5310 of 1991, 5646 of 1991.
Decided On : 1-12-1992

The provisions of Sections 4(1), 5A, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be strictly complied with in land acquisition proceedings. Any action taken in violation of these provisions is without jurisdiction.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - PERSONAL HEARING - APPROVAL OF STATE GOVERNMENT - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 9(1) AND (3) - JURISDICTION OF COLLECTOR - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 4(1), 5A, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who had purchased agricultural land for setting up industries, challenged the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), as well as the declaration under Section 5 of the Act, on the grounds of defects in the notification, lack of personal hearing, absence of prior approval of the State Government for the award, and premature issuance of notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

1. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act sufficiently provided the necessary particulars of the land to be acquired, including khasra numbers, locality, and area, enabling interested persons to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. The absence of the owners' names in the notification did not invalidate it. 2. The requirement of personal hearing under Section 5A(2) of the Act was complied with, as the petitioners were represented by an authorized pleader. 3. The first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act, which mandates prior approval of the State Government for the award, is directory and not mandatory. The absence of such approval did not invalidate the award. 4. The notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act was issued prematurely, as it was issued before the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The Collector lacked jurisdiction to issue such notice before the declaration was published.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was valid despite the absence of the owners' names. 2. Whether personal hearing was provided to the petitioners under Section 5A(2) of the Act. 3. Whether prior approval of the State Government was necessary for the award under Section 11(1) of the Act. 4. Whether the notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act was issued prematurely.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The purpose of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is to provide sufficient notice to interested persons to enable them to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. The requirement of the law is not that the names of the owners should also be mentioned. If sufficient particulars of the land are given in the notification, it will provide sufficient notice to the interested persons. 2. The requirement of personal hearing under Section 5A(2) of the Act is satisfied if the person is represented by an authorized pleader. 3. The first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act, which mandates prior approval of the State Government for the award, is directory and not mandatory. The absence of such approval does not invalidate the award. 4. A notice under Section 9(1) and (3) of the Act can only be issued after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is published. The Collector lacks jurisdiction to issue such notice before the declaration is published.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the acquisition of the land in dispute was held to be without jurisdiction. The award was quashed only to the extent of the land in dispute.