NUTTAKI SESHARATNAM versus SUB-COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISTION VIJAYAWADA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 31-10-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
in law to no more than an offer in terms of the Contract Act. The 
said offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer to 
whom it was made. Leave alone, making the award of lump-sum 
compensation, no award at all was made by the said officer award-
ing compensation to the appellant till the aforesaid offer w.as with-
drawn by the appellant or even tm the writ petition was filed. Till 
the offer was accepted there was no contract between the parties 
and the appellant was entitled to withdraw bis offer. There was 
nothing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer, as the 
appellant was in no way bound to keep the offer open indefinitely. 
[117 G-H, 118-A) 
C 
2. The acquisition of the appellant's land is bad in law be-
cause the substance of the Notification was not published in the 
locality within forty days of the publication of the Notification in 
the Government Gazette. The time-limit of forty days for such pub-
lication in the locality has been made mandatory by section 4(1) of 
the 1894 Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 
D 
1983. Such non-compliance renders acquisition bad in law. (118-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1985 of the Andhra Pradesh 
E 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 577of1985. 
B. Kanta Rao for the Appellant. 
K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KANIA, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of 
a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Writ 
Appeal No.577of1985 filed in that Court. 
G 
Very few facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. 
The appellant is the owner of a plot comprising roughly 2 acres of 
land in Ramavarappadu village, Vijayawada Taluk, in the Krishna District 
in Andhra Pradesh. The Government of Andhra Pradesh sought to acquire 
about I acre and 89. cents out of the aforesaid land for a public purpose. A 
H 
Notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein-
after referred to as "the said Act") was published in the Government 
r 
• 
• 
SESHARA TANAM v. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION [KANIA, J.] 
117 
Gazette on February 9, 1976. The substance of the said notification was 
A 
published in the locality where the land proposed to be acquired is situ-
---
ated, on April 2; 1978, long after the period of 40 days within which it 
was required to be published as per the provisions of section 4(1) of the 
said Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 1983, (Act 
9 of 1983). Enquiry under section SA of.the said Act was dispensed with 
invoking the urgency clause as per section 17(4) of the said Act. Notifica-
B 
tion under section 6 was published on the same day as the publication of 
the notification under section 4(1) of the said Act. An inquiry was con-
ducted regarding the fixation of compensation to be awarded to the appel-
lant and others whose lands were acquired under the said notification. It 
appears that during the course of the said inquiry the ap~llant stated to 
the Land Acquisition Officer concerned that he was willing to agree to the c 
land being acquired provided he was given compensation in a lump-sum. 
Probably, the reason was that ifthe compensation was awarded in a lump-
sum without delay, the appellant might have been able to purchase some 
other land, as his holding was under the ceiling limit. The aforesaid facts 
have been found by the Trial Court and accepted by the High Court. On 
November 9, 1979, before any rward was made, the consent to the acqui-
D 
sition of the land given by the appellant, as aforestated, was withdrawn by 
him and on May 14, 1981, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High 
Court questioning the validity of the land acquisition proceedings. The 
learned Single Judge befor~ whom the said .writ petition along with an-
other writ petition came up for hearing held that the appellant had agreed 
to the acquisition of the said land on compensation being paid as aforestated, 
E 
and hence it was not open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the 
said notifications issued under section 4(1) and section 6 of the said Act. 
It was held by him that the withdrawal of the said representation or 
consent by the appellant did not in any manner assist him. The learned 
~ 
Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant wi

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