LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. versus VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·, •• • • • ' • A B c D E STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. v. VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. F'ebruary 9, 1966 (A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.J Land Acquisition Act (1 of 189'4), ss. 4, 5-A, 6, 17, 48 and 49- Notification under s. 4-lf could be followed by more than one notification under s. 6. After the issue of a notification under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which it was declared that lands in certain \illages were likely to be needed for a public purpose, a number of notifications, in respect of different items of land specified in the notification under s. 4(1), were successively issued under s. 6. The validity of the last of them was challenged by the respondents, by a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition holding that a notification under s. 4(1) could be followed only by one notification under s. 6, and there- fore it was not open to the Government to issue sucoessive notifications with respect to different parts of land comprised in one notification under s. 4. In appeal to this Court, by the State, HELD : The High Court was right in holding that there can be Dll successive notifications under s. 6 with respect to land in a locality speci· fled in one notification under s. 4(1). [572 C-DJ Per Sarkar, J. Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act read together indicateo that the Act contemplates only, a single declaration under s. 6 in respect of a notification under s. 4. There is nothing in ss. 17 and 49(2)(3) to lead to a contrary view. There is nothing in the Act to support the view that it is only a withdrawal under s. 48 that puts a notification under s. 4 completely out of the way. [560 G; 561 C; 561 BJ Per Wanchoo and Muclholkar, JJ. Sections 4, 5-A and 6 are integrally 11 conne.cted and without the notifications under ss. 4 and 6 no acquisition can take place, because, they are the basis of all proceedings which follow. The notification under s. 4(1) specifies the locality in which the land is to be acquired and under s. 4(2) survey is made to decide what parti- cular land in the locality specified in the notification is to be acquired. Another purpose of the notification under s. 4(1) is to give opportuni!} to persons owning land in the locality to make objections under s. S·A. Section S-A specifically provides that the Collector shall hear all objections G made before him and then make only one report to the Government containing his recommendations on the objections. When such a report is received by the Government, it must give a decision on all the objec- tions at one stage and decide once for all what particular land out of the locality notified under s. 4(1) it wishes to acquire and then issue a de- claration under s. 6. At the stage of s. 4, the land is not particularised but only the locality is mentioned; at the stage of s. 6 the land in the H locality is particularised and thereafter the notification under s. 4(1) having served its purpose exhausts itself. The sequence of events from a notification of the intention to acquire nnder s. 4 to the declaration under s. 6, leads to the conclusion that once a declaration under s. 6 particularil· ing the area ia issued, the remaining non-particularised area in the nofl. MllSup.C.I./66-4 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] 3 S.C.R. ication under s. 4(1) stands automatically released. The intention of Ibo legislature was that one notification under s. 4( I) should be followed by survey under s. 4(2), objections under s. 5-A heard, and thereafter, ono declaration under •. 6 issued. U the Government requirm more land in that locality, there is nothing to prevent it from issuing another n0<i4ca- tion under •- 4(1) making a further survey if necessary, hearing objec- tions and then making another declaration under s_ 6, whereas Ibero Is likely to be prejudice to the owner of the land if there is great delay between tho notifications under s. 4( I) and s. 6. Even if it were poasible to issue two notifications under s. 6 in the special ci.rcumstanci:s arisiag out of the application of s. 17 ( 4), all that is possible is, to issue one notification relating to l"nd to which s. 17(1) applies and another noti- fiaction relating to land to which s. 17 (I) cannot apply, and that is be- cause of the special provisions contained in s. 17 (I) and s. 17 ( 4) ""d not becauSe of the provisions of ss. 4, 5-A and 6. ~tion 48 (I) only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.