1992 Supreme(All) 221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH, A. P. SINGH
RAM KUMAR BHATIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UP - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 20569 Of 1991
Decided On : 04/10/1992
RAJIV GOSVAMI
S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not prescribe any mandatory sequence for the publication of the notification and the giving of public notice.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - SEQUENCE - DISCRIMINATION - VALIDITY OF NOTIFICATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF S. 4 (1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, tenure-holders, challenged the validity of notifications issued under Ss. 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the acquisition of their land for a public purpose. They raised several pleas, including the invalidity of the notification under S. 4 (1) due to the publication of the notification in newspapers preceding the publication in the official gazette, the lack of opportunity for personal hearing under S. 5-A of the Act, the issuance of the notification under S. 6 (1) without application of mind, and discrimination against them in comparison to other landowners.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) in newspapers prior to the publication in the official gazette did not render the notification invalid. The court interpreted S. 4 (1) and found that it did not prescribe any mandatory sequence for the publication of the notification and the giving of public notice. The court also held that the opportunity for personal hearing under S. 5-A was not an idle formality and that the petitioners had been given the opportunity to be heard through their counsel. The court further held that the notification under S. 6 (1) was not issued without application of mind, despite an error in the Hindi version of the declaration under S. 6 (1) referring to S. 17 (4) of the Act, which was corrected by a corrigendum. Lastly, the court held that there was no discrimination against the petitioners as they were not similarly situated to the owners of land belonging to an Ashram, which was acquired for the use of the larger community.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) in newspapers preceding the publication in the official gazette rendered the notification invalid? 2. Whether the lack of opportunity for personal hearing under S. 5-A of the Act vitiated the acquisition proceedings? 3. Whether the notification under S. 6 (1) was issued without application of mind? 4. Whether there was discrimination against the petitioners in comparison to other landowners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not prescribe any mandatory sequence for the publication of the notification and the giving of public notice. 2. The opportunity for personal hearing under S. 5-A of the Act is not an idle formality, and the petitioners had been given the opportunity to be heard through their counsel. 3. The notification under S. 6 (1) was not issued without application of mind, despite an error in the Hindi version of the declaration under S. 6 (1) referring to S. 17 (4) of the Act, which was corrected by a corrigendum. 4. There was no discrimination against the petitioners as they were not similarly situated to the owners of land belonging to an Ashram, which was acquired for the use of the larger community.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all three petitions, upholding the validity of the notifications issued under Ss. 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The ad-interim orders passed in the first two writ petitions were vacated, and there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) ALL the petitioners are tenure-holders and their different Khasara numbers are situate in village Brindaban Bangar, district Mathura. By a common notification issued under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (briefly, the Act) on 30-6-1990 and published in the official gazette on 18-8-1990 acquisition proceedings to acquire their Khasra numbers as specified in the said notification for a public purpose, namely, for planned housing development in Brindaban town, district Mathura through the Mathura Brindaban Development Authority, Mathura were initiated. Since their Khasra numbers are sought to be acquired under a common notification, all these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) WHEREAS the facts of the cases of Ram Kumar Bhatia and others and Usha Devi and others and the rival submissions of the parties made therein are similar, the facts of the case of Smt. Kiran Devi are somewhat different.
( 3 ) THEREFORE, first we deal with the cases of Ram Kumar Bhatia and others and Usha Devi and others. The tenure holders in these two petitions seek quashing of the notifications, issued under Ss. 4 (1) and 6 (1) tenure holders have raised several pleas in the petitions, learned counsel for these tenure-holders made following submissions only for quashing the aforesaid notifications :1. that publication of the notification under S. 4 (1) of the Act in the newspapers having preceded the gazette notification, rendered the notification to be invalid; 2. that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated, as no opportunity of personal-hearing as envisaged by S. 5-A of the Act, was given to the tenure-holders; 3. that notification under S. 6 (1) of the Act was issued without application of mind and, therefore, that is invalid; and 4. lastly, Sri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that they were discriminated against others and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings are violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
( 4 ) WE take up these submission seriatim.
( 5 ) THE first question for consideration is whether the notification under S. 4 (1) initiating acquisition proceedings will be rendered invalid if publication thereof in the newspapers precedes the publication in the official gazette. It is not in dispute that notification (Annexure No. 2 to the petition) under S. 4 (1) was issued on 30-6-1990 and that was published in the gazette on 18-8-1990. So far as the publication in the newspapers is concerned, it is averred by the petitioners that it was published only in one newspaper on 2-7-1990. It the counter-affidavit it is stated that whereas the notification under S. 4 (1) was published in daily Amar Ujala on 2-7-1990, the same was published in the other newspaper daily Jagat Time on 1-7-1990. However, it remains undisputed that the publication in the newspaper preceded the publication in the gazette. Without stressing much on the question whether notification under S. 4 (1) was published in two or one newspaper, Sri Goswami urged that notification under S. 4 (1) became invalid, inasmuch as that was published in the newspaper prior to gazette notification. He submits that S. 4 (1) enjoins upon the respondents to publish the notification in the gazette first and publication of the notification in the newspapers and of the public notice of the substance of such notification should be made in the same sequence as stated in Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 4 of the Act. S. 4 (1) says that whenever the Government takes a decision that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that effect shall be published in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the dates of such publication and giving of such public notice