1983 (8) TMI 309 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether publication in the official gazette is the sine qua non of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Whether the public notice of the substance of the notification can precede its publication in the official gazette.
3. The interpretation of the word "notification" in Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether publication in the official gazette is the sine qua non of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

The core question addressed by the Full Bench was whether publication in the official gazette is essential for a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The judgment emphasizes that the term "notification" implies a formal declaration, proclamation, or publication of an order in the manner prescribed. The ordinary dictionary meaning of "notify" and "notification" includes making known, declaring, or publishing. The judgment highlights that a notification inherently involves formal declaration and publication, contrasting it with a mere decision or order, which remains cloistered until publicized. The judgment cites the Indian Evidence Act and the Punjab General Clauses Act to support this interpretation, concluding that publication in the official gazette is necessary for a notification to be legally effective.

2. Whether the public notice of the substance of the notification can precede its publication in the official gazette:

The judgment holds that the publication of the notification in the official gazette must necessarily precede the public notice of the substance thereof at convenient places in the locality. The word "such" in Section 4(1) of the Act is interpreted to relate to the publication in the official gazette. The judgment reasons that the public notice must be of the substance of what has been published in the gazette, ensuring consistency and compliance with the statutory mandate. The judgment affirms the precedent set in Battan Singh v. State of Punjab, which held that public notice given before the publication in the gazette is invalid. It overrules the contrary decision in Dhani Ram Dhiman v. Land Acquisition Collector, emphasizing that the sequence of publication in the gazette followed by public notice is mandatory and not subject to considerations of prejudice to the affected parties.

3. The interpretation of the word "notification" in Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

The judgment thoroughly analyzes the term "notification" as used in Section 4(1) of the Act. It concludes that a notification must be a formal declaration published in the official gazette, not merely an order or decision of the government. The judgment references the Supreme Court's decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that a government order not published in the gazette could not be equated with a notification. The judgment also discusses the implications of the word "such" in the context of Section 4(1), affirming that it refers to the notification as published in the official gazette. The judgment rejects the argument that the procedural mode of publicity is ancillary and of no legal consequence, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the statutory requirements.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

Satya Parkash Goyal, J.:

Justice Goyal dissented, arguing that the decision of the government acquires the character of a notification when it is drawn and signed by the proper authority, and its publication in the official gazette is just a mode of notifying it to the public. He contended that the words "such notification" refer to the notification issued by the government and that the publication of the substance of the notification in the locality before its publication in the gazette does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. He emphasized that the publication in the locality cannot be prejudicial to the landowners, as the limitation for filing objections starts from the publication in the gazette.

Final Order of the Court:

The majority judgment allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notification. The court held that publication in the official gazette is essential for a notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the public notice in the locality must follow the gazette publication. The respondents were left free to issue a fresh notification in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.