1991 Supreme(All) 183
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. DHAON, D. S. SINHA
SARFARAZ HUSAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 8348 Of 1987
Decided On : 02/18/1991
The publication of the substance of the notification, as published in the official gazette, in the locality, is mandatory, and a valid notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, will come into existence only after both the acts of publication in the official gazette and in the locality have been performed.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - DELAY IN PUBLICATION IN LOCALITY - EFFECT - RATIO DECIDENDI OF SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF MYSORE V. ABDUL RAZAK SAHIB (AIR 1973 SC 2361) RESHAPED IN DEEPAK PAHWA V. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI (1984) 4 SCC 308.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the validity of a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, alleging non-publication of the notification in the locality, non-service of notice upon the petitioners, and failure to publish the notification in the locality within 21 days from the date of publication in the official gazette.
Finding of the Court:
1. Publication in the locality had taken place. 2. Personal notice to the petitioners of the notification under Section 4(1) was not required. 3. The right to file an objection within 21 days accrued to the petitioner after the publication in the locality. 4. The delay between the publication in the official gazette and the public notice in the locality did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the notification in the locality was valid. 2. Whether personal notice to the petitioners of the notification under Section 4(1) was required. 3. When did the right to file an objection within 21 days accrue to the petitioner? 4. Whether the delay between the publication in the official gazette and the public notice in the locality caused any prejudice to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Publication of the substance of the notification, as published in the official gazette, in the locality, is mandatory. 2. A valid notification under Section 4 will come into existence only after both the acts of publication in the official gazette and in the locality have been performed. 3. The ratio decidendi of State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib (AIR 1973 SC 2361) was reshaped in Deepak Pahwa v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1984) 4 SCC 308.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
( 2 ) SHRI R. H. Zaidi has advanced the following submissions in support of this petition : (1) No publication of the notification u/s. 4 took place in the locality, (2) the notice issued u/s. 4 was not served upon the petitioners in conformity with S. 45 of the Act and (3) the publication in the locality having not taken place within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official gazette, the entire proceedings fell through. We shall deal with these contentions in seriatim.
( 3 ) ). Re. 1. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, which has been sworn on personal knowledge by a pairokar on behalf of the petitioners, the averment is that according to the further information gathered by the petitioners, the Collector, Moradabad never caused public notice of the notification dated 4/05/1982 or the substance thereof to be given/ affixed at any convenient place or any other place in the concerned locality. This averment has been controverted in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by one Shri Anil Kumar Sachan, a Junior Engineer in the Moradabad Development Authority. The averments are these. The substance of the notification u/s. 4 of the Act was published on the spot and at the police station and the tehsil. There was wide publicity about the acquisition proceedings and the petitioners and other tenure holders, whose land had been acquired, very well knew about the land acquisition proceedings. Wide publicity of the acquisition of the plot in dispute and other plots was made in the locality. The Naib Tehsildar got publicity made through Vinod Swarup, peon and on Ist December, 1982 Vinod Swarup, peon had submitted a report that the notice had been published on the notice board and also on the Neem tree in the village. A copy of the notice was pasted on the notice board of Tehsil and the police station. A true copy of the report submitted by Vinod Swarup has also been filed as Annexure 2 to the affidavit. On the material on record, we are satisfied that the publication in the locality had taken place. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention.
( 4 ) ). Re. 2. It is not the requirement of S. 4 of the Act that a personal notice should be given of the publication made under sub-sec. (1 ). Sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 talks of personal notice upon the occupier of a building etc. after publication of the notification u/ S. 4 has taken place and the officer authorised desires to enter upon and survey the land etc. S. 45 talks of the manner of service of the notice which is contemplated in sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 and the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 makes the position clear. There is, therefore, no substance again in the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that personal notice should have been given to the petitioners of the notification under S. 4 (1 ).
( 5 ) ). Re. 3. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 4 and S. 5-A of the Act, as amended in this State and as they stood at the relevant time, ran as under:-"4 (L) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government or the Collector 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 the Collector shall cause a notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. ""5-A. Any person interested in any land which has been notified u/s. 4, sub-sec. (1), a