NARINDRAJIT SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 24-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

698 
NARINDRAJIT SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
October 24, 1972 
[A. .N. GROVER AND X. K. MATHEW'. JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 4(1) and (2), 5-A, r7(4)-
Col/ector not causing public notice of substance of notification to be 
given in locality-Non-compliance with section 4(1)--Section 4(1) 
held mandatory and to be read as integrated provision containing two 
conditions-Not controlled by Section 1((4). 
A 
B' 
A notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition 
Act on October 15, 1960 for acquisition of the land in dispute. The 
C 
Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the notification 
to be announced at convenient places in the locality where the la.nd 
sought ·to be acquired' was situate, as required by the second part of 
section 4( 1). Under section 17 ( 4) of the Act the provisions of section 
SA 
were 
dispensed 
with. 
On October 28, 1960 the notification 
under section 6 was issued. The appellant was directed to be present 
before . the Collector in pursuance of a notice under Sec. 9 on 
D 
December 4, 1960. On December 5, 1960 the appellant filed a petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceed-
ings. The petition was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court 
whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELB : (i) The law as settled by this Court is thz.t such a notice 
E 
under second part of section 4(1) is mandatory and unless that notice 
is 
given 
in 
accordance 
with 
the 
orovisions 
contained 
therein 
the entire acquioition proceedings are vitiated. Under section 4(2) such 
a notice is necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry. 
Non-<:0mpli£1nce with that condition makes the 
entry 
unlawful. The 
purpose behind such a notice is that interested persons should know that 
the land. is being acquired so as to prefer any objections under s. 5-A 
which confers a valuable right. [6990] 
J1 
Khub Chand and Others v. The State of Kajasthan and Ors. [1967] 1 
S.C.R. 120 and State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, C.A. 2361 of 
1968 dt. August 11, 1972 referred to. 
(ii) The construction of S.4(1) cannot be made to depend upon 
any action or direction which the State Govt. may choose to make under 
S. 17(4) of the principal Act. S. 4(1) has to be read as an integrated 
G 
provision which contains two conditions both being mand&tory. Require-
ment of 1mblic notice in the locality cannot be rendered directly by a 
notification under S. 17(4) dispensing with hearing under Sec. SA. [700H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE Jm1smcTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1192 
and 1193 of 1967. 
Appeal by ~pedal leave from the order dated January 13, 
1969 of the Punjab and Ha:ryana High Court, at Chandigarh, in 
L.P.A. No. 6 of 1 Q69. 
H 
A 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
NARINDRAJJT v. U.P. STATE (Grover, J.) 
699 
B. Sen and G. D. Gupta, for the appellant. 
V. C. Maiiajar. and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GROVER, J. These two appeals by certificate from a judg-
ment of the Allahabad High Coll! c must succeed on the short 
ground that the provisions of s. 4( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894, were not complied with. In C.A. 1192/67 a notification 
was issued under s. 4 of the Act on October 15 1960 for acquisi-· 
tion of the land in dispute. Under s. ·i 7 ( 4) of' the Act the provi-
sions of s. SA were dispensed with. 
On October 28, 1960 the 
notification under s. 6 was issued. The appellant was directed to 
be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under s. 9 
on December 4, 1960. On December 5, 1960 the appellant filed a 
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the acqui-
sition proceedings. The petition was dismissed by a single judge 
of the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal 
by the Division Bench. Section 4(1) of the Act is in the follow-
ing terms:-
"Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government 
that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be 
needed for any public purpose, a notification to that 
effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, lffid the 
Collector shall cause public notice of the s.ubstance of 
such notification to be given at convenient places in the 
said locality"; 
It is common ground that the Collector did not cause public notice 
of the substance of the notification to be given at convenienJ places 
in tl1e locality where the land sought to be acquir

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