MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD ETC. versus MOHD. SHAFI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 657 · Decided: 13-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_...1.. 
MADHYA PRADESH HOUSING BOARD ETC. 
A 
v. 
MOHD. SHAFI AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 13, 1992 
[M.H. KANIA, CJ., T.K. THOMMEN AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
• 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Sections 4(1), 6( 1) and 17(1)-Acquisition of Land-Notification not 
' 
disclosing with sufficient clarity details of land and public purpose for which C 
land was sought to be acquired-Validity of 
On a request from the Executive Engineer of the petitioner Housing 
Board, the State Government issued a notification under Sections ~(I) and 
17(1) of the Land Acqui-sition Act and a declaration under Section 6 of 
the Act for the acquisition of 2.298 hectares of land in the village men-
D 
tioned in the Schedule to the Notification under Section 4(1), for the 
purpose of construction of buildings and shops under self financing 
scheme. 
The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challeng-
ing the validity of the notification as also the declaration, on various 
grounds, including that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was 
vague and invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of 
the Act and that recourse to the urgency provisions under Section 17(1) 
of the Act could not be had since the land was not ''waste or arable", which 
E 
was sine qua iwn for exercising powers under Section 17(1) of the Act. 
F 
Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court quashed the acquisition 
proceedings. Hence the appellant, the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board 
filed Special Leave Petition before this Court. On behalf of the appellant 
Board, it was contended that since the acquisition of land had been made 
at the request of the Housing Board of a large extent of land, absence of G 
providing detailed particulars of the land or the locality where it was 
situate, could not vitiate the notification, more so, when sufficient par-
ticulars had been provided in the declaration issued under Section 6(1) of 
the Act wherein it had also been indicated that the site plan of the land 
was available in the office of the Collector; that the "public purpose" H 
657 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 
A mentioned in the schedule to the notification issued under Sections 4(1) 
and 17(1) of the Act, as also in the notification issued under Section 6(1) 
of the Act, was sufficiently clear and the finding of the High Court that the 
notifications were vague on that account wils incorrect and that absence. 
of a finalised housing scheme could not vitiate the acquisition proceedings 
B and that the High Court was in error in holding that recourse could not 
be had to the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the notification 
C in question was vitated on account of being vague an? for non-compliance 
with the mandatory requirements of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
[667C] 
2.1. The process of acquisition has to start with a notification issued 
under Section 4 of the Act, which is mandatory, and even in cases of 
D urgency, the issuance of notification under Section 4 is a condition prece-
dent to the exer~ise of any further powers under the Act. Any notification 
which is aimed at depriving a man of his property, issued under Section 
4 of the Land Acquisition Act has to be strictly construed and any serious 
lapse on the part of the acquiring authority would vitiate the proceedings 
E and cannot be ignored by the courts. [662H; 663A-B] 
• 
2.2. The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act is 
two-fold. First, it is a public announcement by the Government and a 
public notice by the Collector to the effect that the land, as specified 
therein, is needed or is likely to be needed by the Government for the 
F 
"public purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorises the 
departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as the case may be 
to do all such acts as are mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Act. . The 
notification has to be published in the locality and particularly persons 
likely to be affected by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an 
activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give with sufficient 
G clarity not only the "public purpose" for which the acquisition proceedings 
are being commenced but also the "locality" where the land is situate with 
, as full a description as possible of the land proposed to be acquired to 
enable the "inte

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