1976 (4) TMI 229 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Requirement of simultaneous or immediate publication of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality.
3. Timeframe for filing objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Section 4 Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The petitioners challenged the legality of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, arguing that these notifications were invalid. The court examined whether the notification under Section 4 was valid, considering the statutory requirements. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan*, which established that the giving of public notice is mandatory. The court concluded that a notification issued under Section 4 without complying with the mandatory direction of giving public notice would be void, and the land acquisition proceedings taken pursuant thereto would also be void.

2. Requirement of Simultaneous or Immediate Publication of the Substance of the Notification in the Concerned Locality:
The core issue was whether the publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality had to be given simultaneously with or immediately after the publication in the official Gazette. The petitioners contended that failing to do so would render the notification and subsequent acquisition proceedings illegal. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 4(1) and 5A(1), and concluded that the notification under Section 4 would be valid only when both conditions mentioned in Section 4(1) were complied with. The court held that the substance of the notification must be published in the concerned locality simultaneously or at least immediately after the publication in the official Gazette. The court relied on Supreme Court decisions in *Narinderjit Singh v. State of U.P.* and *State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib*, which supported this view.

3. Timeframe for Filing Objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The court examined the timeframe for filing objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act. The Deputy Advocate General argued that the time for filing objections would start from the date of the publication of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality. However, the court found this contention fallacious. The plain reading of Section 5A(1) indicated that the person interested gets 30 days for filing objections after the issue of notification in the Official Gazette. The court clarified that the words 'issue of notification' in Section 5A(1) connoted the same meaning as 'publication of notification' in the official Gazette as used in Section 4(1). Therefore, the time for filing objections starts from the date of the publication of the notification in the official Gazette.

Conclusion:
The court held that the publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality had to be given simultaneously or at least immediately after the publication of the notification in the official Gazette. The court emphasized that the right to file objections under Section 5A(1) is a valuable right, and any delay in the publication of the substance in the locality would curtail this right. The court found that in the present case, the publication of the substance in the concerned locality was made on the 29th day after the publication in the official Gazette, which was not in compliance with the statutory requirements. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
All three judges, Prem Chand Jain, Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, and Ajit Singh Bains, agreed with the judgment, and no separate judgments were delivered.