THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD, A.P. versus MOHD. AMRI KHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 30-09-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI, R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
152 
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BYDERAllAJl URBAN 
DEVELOPMENT AIJTHORITY, BYDERAllAll, A.P. 
v. 
MOIID. AMR! KHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 
(P.N, BHAGWATI, C.J., K.S. PATHAK AND AMARENllRA NATH SllN, JJ.J 
Larui 
Acquisition 
Act, 
1894, 
Section 
4(1) 
and 
Land 
Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment and Validation) Act, 19~3, 
Sections 3(1) and 2 -
Acquisition of Land -
Publication of 
C 
Notification in Official Gazette and public notice in the 
locality · -
Whether both should be simultaneous or imnediately 
after one another - Amended ~ection 4(1) laying down the limit of 
the time gap to 40 days with retrospective effect - Delay of over 
two months in the issue of public notice - Whether invalidates 
the Notification. 
D 
The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification under 
Section 4 sub-sec. (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for 
acquiring certain land for the purpose of the Hyderaba<i Urban 
Development Authority (HUDA) and published it in the Andhra 
Pradesh Gazette on 4th August, 
1977. Public notice of the 
substance of the Notification was given at convenient places in 
e 
the locality, after a period of about 2 months, on 3rd Oct., 
1977. 
On 
10.1.1979, 
the 
State 
Government 
issued another 
Notification under Section 6 of the Act excluding some land and 
declaring that the remaining area of land was needed for the 
purpose of HUDA. The Land Acquisition Officer made an Award on 
27th July 1981 and issued notices to the respondents to deliver 
F 
possession of the land comprised in the area notified under 
Section 6 of the Act. The respondents challenged the validity of 
the aforesaid Notifications in a writ petition before the High 
Court. The High Court, following an earlier Full Bench decision 
dated 3rd December, 1982, allowed the writ petition on the ground 
that local publicatioq of the substance of the Notification under 
G 
sec. 4 sub-sec. (1) was not made on the same day on which the 
Notification was 
published in the 
Official 
Gazette 
and, 
therefore, the Notification under Section 4 sub-sec. (1) was 
invalid and the Notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) 
being the foundation of the jurisdiction to proceed further with 
the acquisition, the Notification under Section 6 1111Bt also fail. 
H 
LAND ACQN, OFFICER v, MOHD, AMR.I KHAN 
153 
Subsequent to the deli very of the judgment by the High 
Court, the Supreme Court in Deepalt Pallra v. Lt. Governor Delhi & 
Ors. [1984) 4 sec 308 held that there is nothing in sub-sec. (1) 
of Section 4 which requires that the publication in the Official 
Gazette snd public notice in the locality must be simultaneous or 
Jmmecliately after one another, but there should not be a large 
gap between publication in the Gazette snd public notice in the 
locality as would be indicative of break in the continuity of 
action. However, l>efore the decision in Deepalt Paiwa's case, the 
Andhra Pradesh Legislature passed the Land Acquisition (Andhra 
Pradesh Amendment & Validation) Act 1983 (For short, the Amending 
Act) with retrospective effect from 12th Sept., 1975. Sub-section 
(1) of section 4 of the Act after the amendment provided that the 
collector shall, within forty days from the date of publication 
of such Notification, cause public notice of the substance of 
such Notification to be given at convenient places in the 
locality. 
In appeals to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued (i) 
that the Legislature proceeded on the assumption that the Full 
Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court represented the 
correct law on the subject snd it was on that assumption that 
the Amending Act was enacted by the Legislature. If, on the Full 
Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court being reversed by 
the Supreme Court in Deepalt Pal.a1s case, the assumption made by 
the Legislature turned out to be incorrect snd it was found that 
the Legislature proceeded on an erroneous view of the law in 
enacting the Amending Act, the Amending Act, must be considered 
superfluous snd not the Amending Act, but the correct law as it 
prevailed prior to the Amending Act must be applied; snd (ii) 
that the legislature enacted the Amending Act for the purpose of 
validating acquisitions made after 12th September, 1975 which 
were liable to be declared invalid on account of the Full Bench 
Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and it could never have 
been the intention of the Legislature to invalidate, acqU:: aitions 
which

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