Decided on November 22,1965

RAM ASREY LAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-


Cited Judgements :-



W. Boroome, J. - (1.)THESE six special appeals (three fleid by Messrs. Synthetics and Chamicals Ltd. and three by the State of U. P.) are directed against a decision of Satish Chandra J., dated 29-3-1965, by which three writ petitions (Nos. 952,1161 and 1620 of 1961) were disposed of by a common judgment, and it will be convenient to deal with them together.
(2.)THE petitioners in the three writ petitions are the cultivators of various plots of land in the villages of Madhopur Muafi, Nowgaon, Bitaura, Fatehganj West and Kurtara (district Bareilly, which are being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a Synthetic rubber factory to be set up by Messrs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd Originally a combined notification under Sections 2 and 17 (4) of the Act was issued on 2-4-1960 (published in the Gazette of 9-4-1960), followed by another notification dated 4-4 1960 under Section 40 (2) of the Act, appointing the S. D O., (II) of Bareilly to hold the inquiry that is necessary in the case of acquisition for a company. THEreafter an agreement was executed by the Company in accordance with Section 41 on 19-6-1960; and a notification under Section 6 was issued on 30-6-60 (published in the Gazette of 2-7-1960). At this stage a number of writ petitions were filed, challenging the various notifications that had been issued, and these petitions were due to come up for hearing in March 1961. Meanwhile, however, the Government realised that there were certain legal flaws in the notifications that had been issued and accordingly passed orders on 23-2-1961, cancelling the earlier notifications under Section 4/17 (4) and 6, dated 2-4-1960 and 30-6-1960 respectively, but maintaining the notifications under Section 40 (2) dated 4-4-1960 with slight verbal modifications. On the same day (23-2-1961) a fresh notification under Sections 4/17 (4) was issued; and the following day (24-2 1981) a fresh notification was issued under Section 6. THE cancellation of the earlier notification and the issue of the fresh notification were all published together in the Gazette of 25-2-1961. As a result of these changes the earlier writ petitions became infructuous and were dismissed on 17-3-1961. In pursuance of the notification under Section 6 dated 24-2-1961 the Collector issued a notice under Section 9, calling for claims to compensation; and on 17-3-1961 a notification was published under Section 17 (1) authorising him to take possession of the land on the expiry of 15 days from the date of that notice. Possession was accordingly taken and the land was handed over to the Company on 21-3-1961 THE writ petitions with which we are at present concerned were filed on 3-4-1961, challenging the notifications that had been issued under Section 4/17 (4), 6 and 17 (1) on 23-2-1961, 24-2-1961 and 17-3-1961 respectively.
The following three points were argued before the learned single Judge: (1) That the simultaneous combined notification under Section 4 and Section 17 (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was illegal; (2) That the declaration under Section 6 of the Act could not validly be made until the notification under Section 4 had been published in the Gazette and. (3) That the inquiry contemplated by Section 40 (2) of the Act could not be held prior to the issue of the notification under Section 4. The learned single Judge repelled the petitioner's arguments on the first two points, but agreed with them on the third point, holding that the inquiry made under Section 40 (2) on the basis of the order dated 4-4-1960 was contrary to law because it had been made before there was any valid notification under Section 4. He further held that since the Government could not give its consent to acquisition for the company under Section 40 unless there had been a valid inquiry, the subsequent proceedings under Sections 6 and 9 were without jurisdiction. He accordingly quashed, the notification under Section 6 dated 24-2-1961 and the notification under Section 17 (1) dated 17-3-1961 and directed the land to be restored to the possession of the petitioners forthwith.

Against this decision the Company (Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.) and the State of U. P. have filed the present special appeals. The main argument advanced by Mr. Jagdish Swarup on the appellant's behalf is that there is nothing in the law to prevent an inquiry under Section 40 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act being held before any notification is issued under Section 4 and that consequently the learned single Judge was wrong in holding that proceedings taken in the present case were vitiated by any legal flaw.

(3.)MR. M.P. Bajpai, appearing for the petitioners-respondents, has sought to support the decision of the learned single Judge not only on the basis of the finding given in the petitioner's favour but also on other grounds His contention may be tabulated us follows: (1) That inquiry held under Section 40(2) cannot precede the issue of a notification under Section 4. (2) The simultaneous issue of notification under Section 4 and Section 17 (4) is illegal. (3) The simultaneous issue of notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 is illegal. (4) The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 in the present cases are bad because they do not clearly specify the land that is to be acquired. (5) As regards the land involved in writ petition No. 1620 of 1961 (giving rise to special appeal No. 185 of 1965) the notification under Section 17 (1) dated 17-3-1961 and all subsequent proceedings are invalid because that land was already in the possession of the Government. The first of these contentions is the point on which the three writ petitions were allowed, Nos. (2) and (3) were raised before the learned single Judge, but were repelled by him. No. (4) does not appear to have been argued but is covered by the grounds set forth in the petitions. No. (5) was neither argued before the learned single Judge nor mentioned in the writ petition (No. 1620 of 1961) and we are not disposed to allow such a question to be agitated before us for the first time in special appeal.
We see no force in the fourth contention of Mr. Bajpai, viz. the suggestion that the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 are bad because they do not give sufficient particulars to enable the land that is under acquisition to be identified. Reliance is placed on the decision given by one of us in Ram Sewak v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 All 24; but that case is clearly distinguishable, as the notification under Section 6 that was held therein to be invalid for want of sufficient particulars made no mention of any map being available for inspection, showing the plots that were to be acquired In the present instance both the notification under Section 4 (Annexure E) and the notification under Section 6 (Annexure F), besides giving the acreage to be acquired and the name of the village where the land is situated, incorporate a note to the effect that "a plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector Bareilly." Two different Division Benches of this Court have held this to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law vide Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No.2502 of 1961. Shamsuddin v Govt of U. P. disposed of by Dwivedi J. on 27-3-63 (All) after a reference had been answered by a Division Bench and Special appeal No. 323 of 1963, Ranjit Singh v State of U. P. decided on 8-10-1963 (All) With these decisions we are in respectful agreement and accordingly hold that the impugned notifications in the present case are not vitiated by any failure to disclose sufficient particulars.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.