RAGHUNATH & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 07-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAGHUNATH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
APRIL 7, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4 and 6-Valid declaration 
r under section 6-Scope of Notification under section 4 gets exhausted-
Not so when declaration under section 6 is invalid, ineffective or 
infructuous-No distinction between declaration held invalid by court 
and declaration withdrawn by government when some illegality is 
pointed out. 
The appellants' lands were among those sought to be acquired 
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by means of a notiftcation under 
·section 4, followed. by a declaration under section 6. The Notification 
and the declaration were challenged by way of a Writ Petition on the 
short ground that the appellants had not been heard before making the 
declaration. When the Writ Petition was heard, a statement on behalf 
of the Government was made, to the effect that the notification under 
section 6·was being withdrawn. On the basis of this statement the Writ 
Petition was disposed of as withdrawn. Thereafter the appellants were 
heard under section SA and a fresh declaration under section 6 was 
issued. The appellants filed a Writ Petition and again challenged the 
Notification under section 4 as vitiated by ma/a /ides and non-applica-
tion of mind. The High Court rejected the same. Another question 
raised before the High Court was that the withdrawal of the earlier 
declaration had the automatic effect of rendering the Notification under 
section 4 ineffective and infructuous. The High Court rejected that 
contention as well. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. Once there is a valid declaration under section 6, the 
scope of the notification under section 4 will get exhausted. This princi-
G 
pie cannot clearly apply to a case where the declaration under section 6 
proves to be invalid, ineffective or infructuous for some reason. There is 
no distinction between a case where a declaration under section 6 is 
declared invalid by the Court and a case in which the Government itself 
withdraws the declaration under section 6 when some obvious illegality 
is pointed out. [444E, 44SB] 
H 
441 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
Girdhari Lal Amrit Lal v. State,. [1966] 3 SCR 437; State v. 
A 
Haider Bux, [1976] 3 SCC 536 and State v. Bhogilal Keshavlal, [1980] 2 
B 
SCR 284 followed. 
, · 
State v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, [1966] 3 SCR 557 distinguished. ,.._-
J 
\ 
Ajit Singh v. State, AIR 1972 Bombay 177 disapproved. 
! 
{ 
\ 
2; Between the date of withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition and\ 
the issue of the second declaration under section 6, the Government bad 
\ 
issued a fresh Notification under section 4 for the acquisition of certain 
\ 
lands. The lands in the two Notifications under section 4 do not comp-
i 
Ietely overlap, but some fields are common in both. No declaration un- _ 
C der section 6 had been issued in furtherance of the second notification ~ 
\ 
under section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. In respect or the , 
lands covered by the first notification under section 4 which are also 
covered by or comprised in the second notification nnder section 4, · 
further proceedings regarding acquisition shall be taken in accordance 
D with law only in pursuance of the latter notification and the proceedings 
initiated by the first notification should be deemed to have been 
superseded. [445C-F] 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeiil No. U74 
of 1988. . 
. , 
'tt 
Froio the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.1986 of the Bombay 
High Court in W.P. No. 1143of1985. · 
Masodkar and A.K. Gupta for the Appellant. 
~· '. 
V.S. Desai and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. 1. ·We grant special leave and proceed to 
dispose ofthe appeal after hearing both counsel. · . . l · 
2. The point raised in the appeal is a very short one_ The lands, 
L .
belonging to the petitioners were among those sought to be acquired 
!""'
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as .'the 
Act') by means of a notification under Section 4)ssued on 22nd June, 
1982. This was followed up by a declaration under Section 6 dated 15th 
H March, 1983. The petitioners challenged both the notification and the 
-
RAGHUNATH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [RANGANATHAN. J.1 
443 
declaration in writ petition No. 947 of !983 before the High Co

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