NARENDRAJIT SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 21-11-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

278 
NARENDRAJIT SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 
November 21, 1969 
(S. M. Snoo AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4-(1)-Notification under-Validity 
of Notification which dors not specify locality where land is needed. 
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification purporting to 
be one under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the effect 
that. '-'the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed for a public purpose". 
Tit~ notification did not specify the locality where the lands were needed. 
It further stated. that s. SA was not applicable since the provisions of s. 
17 (1) was applicable to the land. 
This was followed by a notification 
under s. 6 (1). 
The appellants challenged the proceedings in the High 
Cobrt on the ground, among others, that the notification under s. 4 was 
invalid for non-eompliance with the mandatory provisions 
of the 
Act 
rendering the whole proceedings void. 
The High Court dismissed the 
petitions. Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: The issue of a notification under sub ... (1) of s. 4 is a con-
dition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and 
a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of 
that provision of law must be held to be bad.- Section 4( I) does not re-
quire that the identity of the land which may ultimately be acquired should 
be specified; but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the 
locality in which the land is needed. Any notification which is the first 
step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed 
and courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring 
authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature. 
[281 E-F; 283 B-C] 
In the instant cases the notifications suffered from 
a very serious 
defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified. 
The notification merely indicated that the lands mentioned in tJie 
schedule were needed. The defect in a notification under s. 4(1) cannot 
be cured by giving Juli particulars in the notification under s. 6( 1). It 
is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government 
had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners in as much 
as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid 
reason has been put forward why the details specified in the notification 
under s. 6(1) could not have been given in the one under s. 4(1). [282 G; 
283 F-H] 
Babu Barkya Thakur v. Stat.? of Bomba,v & Ors. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 128 
and Smt. Somavanti v. State_ of Punjab, [1963) 2 S.C.R. 774, referred to. 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JUR,ISDICT!ON : . Civil Appeals Nos. 1192 
and 1193 of 1967. 
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1963 
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 329 and 323 
of 1963. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
NARENDRAJIT SINGH v. u. P. STATE (Mitter, J.) 
27& 
S. V. Gupte, J. P. Goyal and G. N. Untoo for the appellants 
( iri both the appeals) . 
' 
C. B. Agarwa/a and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents (in both 
the appeals) . 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Mitter, J. 
These two appeals by certificate from a common 
judgment of the High .Court of Allahabad arise out of certain 
·land acquisition.proceedings in the District of Rampur. 
The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals are as 
follows. 
On October 15, 1960 the Government of Uttar Pradesh 
issued a notification purporting to be one under s. 4 ( 1) of the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the effect that "the land mentioned 
in the schedule is needed for a public purpose." The notification 
further showed that "the Governor being of opinion that the provi-
sions of sub-s. ( 1) of s. l.'./ of the said Act are applicable to the 
land, is further pleased under sub-s. ( 4) of the said section to 
direct that the provisions of s. 5-A of the Act shall not apply." 
The schedule to the notification reads as follows :-
"SCHEDULE 
District 
Pargana 
Mau'.za 
Approxi-
mate area. 
For what pupose 
required. 
For the rehabili-
tation of displaced families 
from East Pakistan, under 
the Ministry of Rehabilita-
tion, Government of India. 
Note:-The plan of the lar.d may be inspected in the office o'."" the Collector.-
Rampur." 
This was followed by a notification under s. 6 ( 1) of the Act 
dated October 28, 1960. 
This notification shows that the Gover-
nor was pleased to declare under s. 6 of the A

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