1965 Supreme(All) 115

Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA
Khem Karan - Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08/29/1965

The sequence of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the validity of notifications and enquiries conducted in violation of the prescribed sequence.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - SECTION 4 AND 17(4) - JOINT PETITION - SECTION 40 ENQUIRY - SECTION 6 DECLARATION - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - [LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, SECTIONS 4, 6, 17(4), 40, 41] - [CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLE 31] - [GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, SECTION 21] - [CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, ORDER 1 RULE 8] - [EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES BY FERRIS] - [LAWS OF MANDAMUS BY S.S. MERRILL] - [HALSBURY LAWS OF ENGLAND] - [CIVIL MISC. WRIT NO. 1636 OF 1964, KHURJAWALA BUCKLES MANUFACTURING CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.] - [UMA SHANKER RAI V. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, AIR 1960 ALL 366] - [BRIJ RAJ SINGH V. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GHAZIPUR, 1961 (2) CR LJ 327 (ALL)] - [BALAK V. STATE OF U.P., AIR 1962 ALL 208] - [CHARAN SINGH V. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1964 ALL 42] - [SOMWANTI V. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1963 SC 151] - [BARKYA THAKUR V. STATE OF THE BOMBAY, AIR 1960 SC 1203] - [CHARANJI LAL V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1951 SC 41] - [EX PARTE, SCOTT AND MORGAN, (1810) 8 DOWL 328]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, tenure-holders of various plots of land sought to be acquired, challenged the validity of the proceedings for the acquisition of their land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published in the gazette, and an enquiry was held under Section 40. The petitioners contended that the notifications were invalid, the enquiry under Section 40 was not conducted in accordance with the law, and their possession of the land was interfered with in violation of their fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the notification under Section 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act could be published together, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Somwanti's case. However, the declaration under Section 6 could not be made until the publication of the notification under Section 4(1), as per the clear language of Section 17(4). The Court also held that the enquiry under Section 40 had to be conducted after the notification under Section 4, and the enquiry conducted prior to the notification was invalid. Consequently, the State Government's consent to the acquisition was invalid, and the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act were without jurisdiction and were quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the notification under Sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act could be published together? 2. Whether the declaration under Section 6 could be made before the publication of the notification under Section 4(1)? 3. Whether the enquiry under Section 40 could be conducted prior to the notification under Section 4? 4. Whether the State Government's consent to the acquisition was valid in the absence of a valid enquiry under Section 40? 5. Whether the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act were valid in the absence of the State Government's consent?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Somwanti's case to hold that the notification under Sections 4 and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act could be published together. 2. The Court interpreted the language of Section 17(4) to hold that the declaration under Section 6 could not be made until the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). 3. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Barkya Thakur v. State of the Bombay to hold that the enquiry under Section 40 had to be conducted after the notification under Section 4. 4. The Court held that the State Government's consent to the acquisition was invalid in the absence of a valid enquiry under Section 40. 5. The Court held that the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act were invalid in the absence of the State Government's consent.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions, quashed the notifications under Sections 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, set aside the consequent proceedings, and directed the respondents to restore possession of the land to the petitioners.