SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(P&H) 700

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Bali, J.
Daya Nand
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 12266 of 1992,
Decided On : APRIL 30, 1996

Publication in the official gazette must precede public notice in the locality for the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be valid.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Notification Under Section 4 - Validity of Publication

Fact of the Case:

The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the official gazette and through public notices in the village. The petitioners argued that the publication in the official gazette must precede public notice in the locality.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the publication in the official gazette must precede public notice in the locality, as established by a previous Full Bench judgment. Therefore, the notification under Section 4 and the follow-up declaration under Section 6 were quashed.

Issues: Validity of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Ratio Decidendi: Publication in the official gazette must precede public notice in the locality for the notification under Section 4 to be valid.

Final Decision: The notification under Section 4 and the follow-up declaration under Section 6 were quashed, with the option for the respondents to issue a fresh notification and proceed in accordance with the law.

Judgment

V.K.Bali, J.

1. Concededly, notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , was published in the official gazette on 22.8.1989 vide which land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired and publication of this notification by way of beat of drum was done on 16.8.1989 in the village whereas it came to be published in the two news papers on 19.8.1989 and 21.8.1989 respectively. The sole argument, on the aforesaid conceded facts, raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that publication of notification in official gazette must precede public notice of substance thereof at convenient places in the locality and prior public notices in the locality can not validly precede publication of notification in official gazette. This precise position came to be focused by Full Bench of this Court in Kashmiri Lal and Ors., v. State of Punjab and ors., (1983)85 P.L.R. 741 (F.B.) and by a majority judgment it was held that "publication in official gazette of the notification must precede public notice of substance thereof at convenient places in the locality." The notifications challenged in the aforesaid case on the ground mentioned above, were quashed. The matter appears to be squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by an authoritative pronouncement of Full Bench in Kashmiri Lals case (supra). There is no choice in the matter but for to quash notification Under Section 4, Annexure P-1 and follow-up declaration issued Under Section 6, Annexure P-2. So ordered. It is, however, made clear that this would in no way preclude the respondents from issuing a fresh notification and proceed in the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top