DEEPAK PAHWA ETC. versus LT. GOVERNER OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 22-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
DEEPAK PAHWA ETC. 
v. 
LT. GOVERNER OF DELHI AND ORS. 
August 22, 1984 
[0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
(i) Section 4(1)-Requirements of-Wiren satisfied-Whether conte1np!ates 
giving public notice of substance of notification in the locality sim1dtaneously 
wUh pub/icat:on of notification in Official Gazette-Whether delay in giving 
pubUc notice makes notification invalid. 
Held-Public notice must be con-
temporaneous though not si1nultaneous-Contemporaneity Involves gap of time 
-But not long gap-In case of large gap further probe necessary. 
(ii) Section 5~A-Interpretation of-Expression 'the issue of the notification' 
signifies completion of twin process of publication of notification and giving 
public notice in the' locality. 
The period of 30 days to be reckoned from date 
of publication of notification or date of giving public notice 
which~ver 
is later. 
E 
(iii) Section 17(4)-Whether mere pre-notificatz'on delay renders invocati'on 
F 
G 
H 
of urgency pro1Jisions of s. 17(4) void. 
A combined notification under ss.4 and 17 and a declaration under 
s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which were published in the Official 
Gazette in regard to the acquisition of certain lands were challenged in a 
wfit petition before the High Court on two grounds : ( 1) that there was 
delay of 29 days in giving public notice of the substance of notification in 
the locality after the publication of the notification under s. 4 in the 
Gazette and that delay was fatal to the notification itself, and (2) that 
since the matter was under correspondence between various departments 
of the Government for nearly eight years before the notification and the 
declaration were published in the Gazette, that showed that there was 
no urgency necessitating invocation of s. 17(4) of the Act to dispense with 
the enquiry under s. 5-A. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition 
in limine. 
The present special leave 
petitioa.s were 
directed against 
dismissal of the writ petition. 
Dismissing the special leaye petitions, 
HELD ; Section 4( I) of the Land Acquisition Act does not pres• 
• 
• 
• 
.. 
't 
• 
. . 
i>EEi>Ai .t>Ailw.i. v. i.1. GOVERNER 
cribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given 
in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in 
the Official Gazetter or immediately thereafter. 
Publication in the Official 
Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be 
taken under s. 4(1) before proceeding 
to take the next step of entering 
upon the land under s. 4(2). 
Tfle time factor is not the vital element of 
s. 4( t) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneously' or 
'immediately thereafter' into s. 4(1). 
But since the steps contemplated 
bys. 4(2) cannot be undertaken unloss publication is made and public 
notice given as contemplated bys. 4(1), it ~s implicit 
that the publication 
and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous 
or immediately after one 
another. 
Naturally contemporaneity may 
involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the 
publication in the Official Gazette and the public notfce 
in the locality 
must necessarily be separated 
by a gap 
of time. 
This 
does 
not 
mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by a 
Jong interval of time. 
What is necessary, is that the continuity of action 
should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. 
If there is publication 
in the aazette and if there is public notice in the locali~y, the requirements 
of s. 4(1) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from each 
other by a gap of time so large as 1nay lead one to the prima facie conclusion 
of lack of bona fides in the procecidiags for acquisition. 
If the notification 
and the public notice are separated by such a large gap of time it may 
become necessary to probe further to discover if there is any cause for the 
delay and that if the" detaY has caused pre-judice to any one. 
[S92B-H and 593 A-B] 
The submission that if the publication of the notification in the 
Gazette is not immediately followed by public notice in the locality, it may 
lead to a denial to the person interested of an opportunity to object to the 
acquisition under s. 5-A, has no force. 
Section 5-A provides that any 
person interested in any land which has been notified under s. 4(1) may 
object to t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.