9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (8) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic purpose of laying township and orchards. On January 9, 1958, another notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette under s. 5(2) of the Act. On February 3, 1959, a further notification under S. 6 of the Act was published in the Rajasthan Gazette in respect of the said land. The Government of Rajasthan, in exercise of the powers under s. 3(c) of the Act, issued a notification dated September 10, 1955, appointing the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division with headquarters at Hanumangarh, to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction. On July 30, 1959, the said Government published a notification dated June 4, 1959, ,in modification of the previous notification, appointing the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Rajasthan Canal Project, then having headquarters at Bikaner, to perform the said functions within the districts of Ganganagar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer. Notwithstanding the said notification, the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh exercising the functions under the Act, continued the acquisition proceedings. The appellants filed objections questioning the jurisdiction of the said Deputy Director to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a Collector, in the districts of Ganganagar, Bikaner and Jaisalmer, the Deputy Director of Colonisation, Suratgarh Division, with headquarters at Hanumangarh, who was appointed earlier to perform the functions of a Collector under the Act within the local limits of the said jurisdiction, had become functus officio in regard to the instant acquisition and therefore, the proceedings conducted by him thereafter were null and void. (3) Under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector thereunder could make only one award in respect of a notification and, therefore, when he made the first award in respect of the notification he became functus officio and therefore, the second award made by him in respect of the same notification was void. The learned Advocate-General of Rajasthan questioned the correctness of every one of the said contentions. We shall advert to his contentions in the relevant contexts. Sections 4, 5, and 5A of the Act read: Section 4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon.- (1) Whenever it appears to the Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose, a notification to that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate-General argued that a combined reading of ss. 4, 5 and 5A indicates that the direction in the second part of s. 4 that the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality was only directory. He pointed out that s. 4 contemplated only a notification in general. terms and that under s. 5(2), after the Collector ascertained the necessary particulars, the Government had to issue a fresh notification giving sufficient description of the land intended to be acquired along with a plan, if one had been made, and also to cause a public notice to be given of the substance of the said notification at convenient places on or near the land to be acquired. As two notices were contemplated by the Act one in general terms and another with specifications-and as both the notices should be published and their substance should be notified at convenient places, the argument proceeded, that the direction to cause a public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality under s. 4 was only directory, for the party would get under the later notification better particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended to bring the said provision in conformity with those of Central Act 1 of 1894. Whatever may be said on the question of construction after the said amendment-on which we do not express any opinion-before the amendment, ss. 4 and 5(2) were intended to serve different purposes. Indeed, the wording of s. 4 (2) of the Act leads to the same conclusion. It says, thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, generally or specially authorised by the Government in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such locality........... The expressions thereupon and shall be lawful indicate that unless such a public notice is given, the officer or his servants cannot ,enter the land. It is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry. The non-compliance with the said condition makes the entry of the officer or his servants unlawful. On the express terms of sub-s. (2), the officer or his servants can enter the land to be acquired only if that condition is complied with. If it is not complied with, he or his servants cannot exercise the power of entry under s. 4 (2), with the result that if the expression shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw does not make the prior publication of notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 a condition precedent to the publication of a notification under sub-s. (1) of S. 6. On the said ground the contention was rejected. This decision also has no bearing on the point raised before us Indeed the following observation made by this Court in the course of the judgment, to some extent, goes against the contention of the respondent: A notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 4 is a condition precedent to the making of notification under sub-s. (1) of s. 6. In the present case, the High Court, as we have expressed earlier rightly held that the provision for public notice was mandatory but disallowed the objection on the ground that it was rather belated, We find it difficult to appreciate the said reasoning. This is not a case where a party, who submitted himself to the jurisdiction of a tribunal, raised the plea of want of jurisdiction when the decision went 'against him; but this is a case where the appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the tribunal from the outset and refused to take part in the proceedings. Though the notification under s. 4 was published in the Rajasthan Ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
