GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus JAN KALYAN SAMITI, SHEOPURI, GHAZIABAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 09-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
JAN KALYAN SAMIT!, SHEOPURI, GHAZIABAD AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : 
Sections 4( 1 }, 5-A, 6, 17( 4 )--Publication of notification in the 
localil)~Dispensed with by amendment made by U.P. State-Hence notifica-
tion under s.4(1) not vitiated for non-publication of the notification--lssue ~f 
noqfication under S.4( 1) and declaration under S.6--(;ould be simultaneously 
published by operation of the proviso to S.17( 4) as amended by the U.P. 
Amendment Act, 1990. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2099 of 1996. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 3.11.89 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7155 of 1986. 
O.P. Rana, R.B. Misra and Raju Rarnachandran for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Though notice has been served on the contesting respondents, they 
have not appeared either in person or through counsel. 
We have heard Shri O.P. Rana, learned senior counsel for the peti-
tioner. The acquisition of the land by the Ghaziabad Development Authority 
was initiated by notification of February 25, 1986, under Section 4 (1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'); enquiry under Section 5A 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
was dispensed with under Section 17(4) of the Act and the Declaration under 
Section 6 was made on February 26, 1986. Both the notifications and 
G 
declaration were simultaneously published on April I 0, 1986. The respondents 
-~ 
1 and 2 have filed writ petition No. 7155/86 in the High Court of Allahabad 
challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) on the ground 
that local publication as required under Section 4(1) was not made. The 
exercise of the power under Section 17(4) was also wrongly invoked, as 
simultaneously notification under Section 4(1) and declaration under Section 
H 
307 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] l S.C.R. 
A 
6 could not be published. The High Court accepted .the contentions and by 
impugned order dated November 3, 1987, allowed the writ petition and 
quashed the notification of Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6. 
Thus this appeal by special leave. 
Section 4(1) of the Act envisages that whenever it appears to the 
B 
appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be 
needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification to that effect 
shall be published in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers 
circulating in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional 
language. This was added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Earlier thereto 
under the local amendment of U.P., publication in one newspaper was 
C 
sufficient. The Collector is required to cause public notice of the substance of 
-such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. The State 
of UP made amendment to Section 4 by UP Land Acquisition VIII of 1974/ 
XXII of 1954, whereunder between the words "and" and the word "Collector" 
the following shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted. 
The proviso thereto was added as under : 
D 
"Except in the case of any land to which by virtue of a direction of 
< 
E 
F 
G 
H 
the State Government under sub section 4 of Section 17 the provision 
, 
of Section 5 A shall not apply". 
In other words, the-mandatory requirement of the publication of the notifica-
tion in the locality was dispensed with in a case where the Government had 
opined that the land was urgently needed, under Section 17(4). When the 
authorities have dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5A, the requirement 
of local publication shall not apply. Consequently, the finding of the High 
Court in unsustainable. It is rather unfortunate that this amendment was not 
brought to the notice of the High Court when the writ petition was allowed. 
But operation of the statutory local amendment to the Act has dispensed with 
local publication in two newspapers. The notification under Section 4(1) is not 
vitiated for non-publication of the notification in the local newspapers. 
The next question is whether Section 17(4) applies and the action taken 
was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. It is seen that but for local 
amendment, on publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and exercis-
ing of the power under Section 17(4), the publication of the declaration under 
Section 6 is mandatory pre-condi

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