- (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a. suit for perma nent injunction to restrain the Execu tive Engineer. Tube Well Division, Bulandshahr and the Special Land Ac quisition Officer. Meerut from interfer ing with their .possession and use of the plots of land in suit and from taking possession of the same. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the Bhumidhars of the plots in suit. The defendants were, however representing that they had acquired the said land for the pur poses of State Tube Well No. 114 Hapur Group Service Road. The plaintiffs con tended that no valid acquisition pro ceedings had been taken in respect of the said land. No notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisi tion Act had been published nor any notice for acquisition had been served on them. As the defendants were threa tening to interfere with the plaintiffs possession the suit for the aforesaid re liefs was filed. The defendants contest ed the suit contending that the Khasra Nos. 970. 850 and 849 had been acquired for the public purpose of State Tube Well No. 114. Hapur Group Service Road. The said acquisition had been made in accordance with law and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been duly published. It was also contended that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for the suit.
(2.) THE trial court found that the acquisition proceedings were not in ac cordance with the law and were ultra vires. It also held that the plaintiffs had the cause of action to file the suit. The trial court accordingly decreed the suit. Against the said decision the de fendants filed an appeal. The appellate court below found that the land was legally acquired for public purpose. It also, held that the suit was not bad for want of notice under Section 80. Civil Procedure Code. It accordingly allow ed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal. The appellants have impugn ed the decree of dismissal of the suit oa the ground that no proper and valid notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of tiie Land Acquisition Act had been issu ed in the instant case and as such the alleged acquisition proceedings were il legal and invalid. They urged that the notification No. 64 fG)-ILA/Meerut dated 3rd April, 1963, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the U. P. Gazette dated 13th April, 1963. did not contain sufficient particu lars regarding the land to be acquired. Similarly the notification No. 64 (H) (iiij ILA/Meerut dated 1st May. 1963 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the U. P. Gazette dated llth May. 1963. also did not con tain correct .particulars of the land under acquisition. It was pointed out that in both the aforesaid notifications the land was mentioned as being situate in mauza Kilohra and Nahli pargana Dasna whereas the said villages were in par gana Jalalabad. Thus the correct name of the pargana was not mentioned in both the said notices. Similarly the number of the plots sought to be acquir ed were also not mentioned in those notices. The learned counsel for the defendants respondents brought to my notice a notification No. 3780-ILA- Meerut 939-TW published in the U P. Gazette of 13th July. 1963. whereby it was notified that in both the aforesaid notifications of 3rd April. 1963. and 1st May. 1963. for the word 'Dasna' the word 'Jalalabad' under the heading pargana be read. On the basis of this notifica tion it was urged on behalf of the res pondents that the name of the pargana was duly corrected and the defect was removed. The said notifications were, therefore, valid and the acquisition pro ceedings were in accordance with law.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY in the notification issued tinder sub-clause (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 3rd April, 1963. the name of the pargana was not correctly mentioned. The num bers of the plots to be acquired were also not mentioned therein. A note was, however, appended below the said noti fication that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collec tor, Meerut. It is by now a settled law that a notification Issued under Sec. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. which does not comply with the essential re quirements of that provision of law, must be held to be bad. In the case of BahoriLal v. L. A. Officer. 1969 All LJ 813 = (AIR 1970 All 414) a Full Bench of this Court held that:- "A note to the effect that the site plan of the land can be inspected, in a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. cannot be held to be of any conse quence and cannot be accepted as valid substitute for sufficient description of the land and that locality required to be given under Section 4 (1) of the Act If. independently of such a note, the description of the land and the locality in which the land is situate can to held to be sufficient in a particular case, the notification will be valid. If. however, independently of such note, the description of the land and the locality is too vague or indefinite, the notifica tion cannot be held to be valid. Men tion of plot numbers may not be indis pensably necessary in a notification under Section 4 of the Act, but the notification itself must contain particulars adequately revealing the locality and the land pro posed to be acquired therein. Ordinarily this can be done effectively by a pro per description of the locality and the mention of the plot numbers or such other material data as may be sufficient ly indicative of the land and its location. If this has been done in a given case, the requirements of Section 4 (1) of the Act have been fulfilled." ;