STATE OF GUJARAT versus PANCH OF NANI HAMAMS POLE & ORS,

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 19-12-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MADON · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
872 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
Vo 
PANCH OF NANI HAMAM'S POLE & ORS, 
DECEMBER 19, 1985 
[D,P, MADON AND G,L, OZA, JJ,J 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4 read with Rule l of the 
Bombay Rules as adopted by the State of Gujarat and s.9(3) -
'Interested person 1 
-
Whether individual notice necessary -
Absence of individual notice - Whether proceedings invalid. 
Acquisitlon proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 in respect of the lands in possession of the respondents 
Nos. 2 and 3 were started and an award made. Respondents Nos. 2 
and 3 filed a civil suit for declaration that the acquisition 
proceedings and the award pursuant thereto were illegal and for 
an injunction restraining defendants from taking possession. It 
was contended that no notice was given to t!lem under s.4 and 9(3) 
of the Act, that they were not aware of the land acquisition 
proceedings until their landlord told them that possession was to 
be handed over to the Government, that they were the tenants and 
had raised structures at their own costs and, therefore, in 
absence of individual notice to them the entire proceedings are 
vitiated, The appellant-State contested the suit alleging that 
the notification under s.4 was 
published in the Gazette, and 
that apart, this notification as well as notices under ss, 9 and 
10 were also pasted on the site to be acquired and were also 
served on the persons known or believed to be interested in the 
land. 
The Trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that since the 
respondents had actual knowledge of the intended acquisition, 
failure 
to give individual notice under s,9(3) does not 
invalidate the acquisition proceedings. This order was 
confirmed 
by the First Appellate Court. In the Second Appeal by respon-
dents, the High Court set aside the acquisition 
proceedings 
relying on its earlier decision in Aebo"'-r Gorc!Mnbhaf v. 
State of Qijarat & Ora. and holding that under s.4 of the Act 
read with Rule l of the rules framed by the State Government 
under s.55 of the Act, service of notice on parties interested in 
the land is not only obligatory but a condition precedent arA, 
therefore, the acquisition proceedings were bad and · granted 
injunction as prayed for, 
STATE v, PANCH OF NANI 
873 
In appeal to this Court by the State it was contended that 
the respondents had challenged the proceedings on two grounds: 
(i) that s.4 read with rule l of the Bombay Rules and adopted by 
the State of Gujarat require a personal notice of intention to 
acquire under s.4(1), and (ii) that under a.9(3) of the Act also 
individual notice is necessary; but in the present caae, after 
the award was made, the respondents accepting the award filed a 
suit against the landlord who was a party to the acquisition 
proceedings and obtained a decree for their share of the 
compenaation and, therefore, the objection under a.9(3) no longer 
survives, that the High Court in a subsequent decision in the 
case of Vuudev <>nmUal Pancholi y, State of Qajarat 8Dd Ora, 
held that individual notice under a.4(1) read with Rule l is not 
necessary, and, therefore, Bule l of the rules framed under s.55 
could not go beyond the requireaent under s,4(1) and to that 
extent the rule :ts bad in law. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : There are no words in Bule l indicating a personal 
notice, What Rule l contemplates is a notice to the interested 
parties as required under s.4(1) and s.4(1) requires the notice 
to be notified at a convenient place in the locality for 
information of the interested parties, It is, therefore, clear 
that by reading s.4(1) with Rule l it could not be interpreted to 
mean that a personal notice to each and every interested person 
is the requirement of s.4 and in absence of such a notice the 
proceedings of acquisition will be invalidated. [877 E-{;j 
In the instant case, the procedure laid down in a.4(1) of 
the Act was followed and, therefore, it could not be said that 
the notice as contemplated under s.4(1) read with i!ul.e l was not 
given to parties interested and, therefore, it could not be held 
that the proceedings of acquisition are bad in law. [878 A-BJ 
Asboklwmar Gordbanbhai Vo State of Qajarat & Ors,, 10 
Gujarat Law Beporter 503 overruled. 
Vaaudev Qumi!al Pancholi Vo State of Qajarat and Ors., 
25(2) Gujarat Law Beporter 844 and Bai Helium etc. v. State of 
Qijarat & Ors., A.1.R. 1978 s.c. 515 approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l464(N) of 
1972. 

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