LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

KHUB CHAND AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 22-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

KHUB CHAND AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
August 22, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAo, C. J., AND J. M. SHELAT, J.) 
Rajastluin Land Acquisition Act (24 o/ 1953), .s. 4 and 5(2)-
·Giving of public notice of sub~tance of No1ificatiou under s. 4 tlf cont,.e-
nient places in loca/Jty--/f mandatory. 
In 1957, the Government of Rajasthan published a notification under 
s. 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, to the effect that tl!e 
appellants' land was needed for a public purpose. The public notice of 
the substance of the notification to be given by the Collector at convo-
nient places in the locality, as required by s. 4(1), was however not 
givc.n. 
In January 
1958 and February 1959, 
noltfications 
under as. 
5 (2) and 6 respectively of the Act, were published in the local Gazcttc. 
Thereafter, the officer originally appointed by the Government to perform 
the functions of a Collector under the Act continued the acquisition 
proceedings in spite of a Government notification of June 1959, where-
by another officer was appointed to perform those functions. 1be appel-
lant• filed objcc\ions questioning his jurisdiction and stopped tuking part 
in the proceeding;. 
On I I th Dccmiber, 1959. after making ex parte 
enquiries, the officer made an award, and on 27th June I 960, he made 
a second award superseding the first. 
The appellants came to know of 
the awards in September 1960. 
In October 1960, they filed a peli-
tion under Art. 226, challenging the 
validity of the 
proceedings 
on 
the ground., imer alia, that the requirement of the giving of the public 
notice under s. 4( 1) at convenient places of the locality was mandatory, 
and as it \\'as not complied with, the entire acquisition proceedings were 
void. 
The High Court agreed with the contention but dismissed tlw 
petition on the gr >Und that the objection was taken at a belated stage. 
HELD : 
(i) 1be provision in ss. 4(1), requiring public notice was 
mandatory and non<0mptiance with it was fatal to the entire acquisition 
proc<edings. [ 125 HJ 
Section 4(1) says that the Collector shall cause public notice of the 
substance of such notification to be given at convenient places jn the 
said locality. If the word "sball" i< con..trucd as "may" the object of 
the suh-scct;on will be defeated. 
The object is to give intimation to 
the person wh= land is sought to be acquired, of the intention of the 
officer to enter the land. 
Under s. 4(2), such a notice is a necessary 
condition for the exercise of the power of entry and non-compliance with 
the condition makes the entry of rhe officer or his !->ervanls unlawful. [125 
F-H) 
The fact that the owner may have notice of the particulars of the 
intended acquisition under s. 5(2) does not serve the purpose of s. 4. 
for a notice under s. 5(2) is given after the officer enters the Jand and 
submits the particulars mentioned in s. 4. [125 Cl 
Babu Barkya Thakur v. T/ze Stare of Bombay, {1961] I S.C.R. 128, 
e.<plained. 
(ii) The High Coun was in error in holding, on the facts, that 
there was inordinate delay in invoking its jurisdiction. [127 D] 
12) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
..
KHUB CHAND v. RAJASTHAN (Subba Rao, CJ.) 
121 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION·: Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1964, 
Appeal from thejudgment and order dated April 17, 1%3 of 
the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 410 
of 1960. 
B 
Sarjoo Prasad and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appelJant. 
G. C. Kasliwal, Adl'Ocate-General for the State of Rajasthan. 
B. P. Maheshwari and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
Subba Rao, C.J. This appeal by certificate 
is 
directed 
against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, 
dismissing the petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution. 
The relevant facts may be briefly stated. By a registered sale 
D 
deed dated December 10, 1958, the appellants purchased the land 
comprised in Khasra Nos. 158 and 182/2 situated in village Sangaria 
in Tehsil Hanumangarh in the State of Rajasthan. On February 14, 
1957, the Government of Rajasthan published a notification No. 7 
(104) Rev/(A) dated October 19, 1956, under s. 4 of the Rajasthan 
Land Acquisition Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, to the 
effect that the said land, along with others, was needed or likely 
E 
to be needed forthe public purpose oflaying township and orchards. 
On January 9, 1958, another notification was published in the 
Rajasth

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