Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
A. P. Sen J. on difference between T. P. Naik and Shiv Dayal JJ.
Christian Fellowship
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
M. P. No. 412 of 1962 Of
Decided On : Dec 05,1969
The difference between sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Act, is that whereas the former section .refers to "land in a particular locality" the latter contemplates "a particular land" i.e., a specific pliece of land. 1967 JLJ 969 & AIR 1960 SC 1203 relied on
.
A notification under section 4 (1) is merely exploratory or preliminary in nature and the exact area to be acquired need not be particularised at that stage. But it is otherwise with a declaration under section 6, which is issued after the Government have applied their mind to the exact area and location of the land which is needed for a public purpose and are, therefore, to be acquired. The acquired - lands, accordingly, need to be particularised only in the declaration under section 6 of the Act. 1961 JLJ 124 held no more to be good law. 1967 JLJ 969 & AIR 1960 SC 1203 relied on. 1961 JLJ-SN 255, 1961 JLJ-SN 281 & 1963 JLJ 449 referred to. [Para 3
It is the duty of the Government to specify the 'locality' where the land is situate. 1967 JLJ 969 relied on. [Para 4
(2) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S. 4 (1)-word 'locality'-import of -mention of the village where the land to be acquired is situate- 'locality' validly specified.
(3) Words & phrases-word 'locality'-import of.
The word 'locality' has not been denned in the Act. The general rule of construction is that, where the words in a statute are plain, their literal and simple meaning is to be adopted unless the context requires otherwise. Now, the word "locality" has an indefinite meaning, but its indefiniteness has certain well recognised limits. [Para 4
Of its different shades of meaning, the word "locality" in section 4 (1) of the Act must be interpreted in its narrower sense, having regard to the context in which it appears. It relates to a definite area, the whereabouts of which are capable of being ascertained and known. [Para 5
The mention of a village as "locality" in a notification under section 4 (1) is a sufficient compliance of the requirements of the section. [Para 6
If the locality is a reasonably small one, like that of a village, the naming of such village as a 'locality' is a sufficient compliance of section 4(1). But this does not necessarily imply that the naming of a city like Bhopal, would amount to a specification of a locality within the meaning of the section. It all, therefore, depends on the nature of the locality where the land is situate in each particular case. [Para 8
(4) Interpretation of Statutes - departmental instructions regarding a statutory provision-when may be accepted as aid to interpretation.
While a departmental instruction cannot over-ride the true meaning or construction underlying a statutory provision, but an executive instruction can be accepted as an admissible aid to its proper interpretation, if it has prevailed from a long time without any challenge and without being modified by Courts of law. AIR 1965 SC 863, 1960 JLJ 337 & ILR 35 Cal. 701 relied on. [Para 6
(5) Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S. 4 (1)-notification not specifying the locality where the land is situate-this alone does not vitiate the notification-vagueness stands removed by proceedings under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 4.
Even assuming that the naming of a village does not have the effect of specifying "the locality where the land is situate", within the meaning of section 4 (1) of the Act, that defect would not, by itself, render the notification invalid.
The steps taken under sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) cure the defect of vagueness. AIR 1960 SC 1203 relied on. [Para 9
(6) Constitution of India-Art. 226-point not taken in the petition-when may be allowed to be taken.
As a matter of practice, it is impracticable to lay down any rule of universal application. Each case must depend on its own facts. If the ground urged is a pure question of law or is one which goes to the very root of jurisdiction, then Court may in its discretion, allow a petitioner to urge such a question at the hearing. But, it would be otherwise, if the contention sought to be advanced involves a mixed question of fact and law. [Para 11
A. P. Sen j.
( 1. ) This matter comes on a reference by Naik and Shiv Dayal jj. of the following questions : (1) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was invalid, for the reason that the locality where the land was situate was not specified therein ? (2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the afore- said objection was open to the petitioner ? (3) Whether, in the event of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act being invalid for the aforesaid reason, the land acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed ? Their difference lies on the construction of the expression "land in any locality" appearing in section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). That section provides as follows : "4. (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government 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 public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality."
( 2. ) At the time when the reference was made, there was a conflict of opinion prevalent in this Court, regarding the actual requirements of that section. One was the view taken by Shrivastava and Tare jj. in Iftikhar Ahmed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1959 M P L J Note 96- AI R 1961 MP 140) laying down that the failure of the Government to specify the locality where the land is situate or an omission on their part to give particulars of the land sought to be acquired, in a notification under section 4 (1), renders the notification invalid and has the effect of vitiating the land acquisition proceedings. The other was that taken by Dixit, C. J. and Pandey, J. in Hiralal Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (M. P. No. 155 of 1960, decided on 17-2-1961) Bhaiyalal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1961 M P L J Note 138) (M. P. 277 of 1960 decided on 6-7-1961). and Anand Kumar Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1963 M P L J Note 132 = M. P. No. 205 of 1961 decided on 10-10-1961). holding that the notification under section 4 (1) being of an exploratory nature, the particulars of the land necessary for defining and identifying it need not be stated and, therefore, failure to furnish such particulars would not render the notification a nullity. The learned Judges, however, stated that the Government in a declaration under section 6(1) of the Act, by virtue of sub-section (2) thereof, must give sufficient particulars of the land as also the district or other territorial division in which it is situate.
( 3. ) The difference between sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Act, is that whereas the former section refers to "land in a particular locality", the latter contemplates "a particular land" i. e. a specific piece of land. So far the construction of these sections is concerned, there can now be no controversy as regards this, in view of the clear pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay (AIR 1960 SC 1203) and State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma and others (1966 M P L J 995=AIR 1966 SC 1593.) In Barkya Thakurs case, the Supreme Court has observed : "The purpose of the notification under section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels, and, if necessary, digging or boring into the sub-soil whether the land was adapted for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired. It is only under section 6 that a firm declaration has to be made by Government that the land with proper description and area so as to be identifiable is needed for a public purpose or for a company." These observations were, no doubt, made by their Lordships while dealing with the question whether the Government are required to specify
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
