THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 09-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
UMASHANKAR RAJABHAU AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.j 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 4( I), 6, 9 and 48( I). 
• Land Acquisition-Notification--Declaration--Award-Purchase of 
land before publication of notification-No mutation in favour of pur-
C 
chaser-Consequentially notices not issued to purchaser-Sale of land by 
purchase1~Setting aside of acquisition proceedings f of non issue of notic~ 
Held not valid. 
Land Acquisition-Withdrawal of acquisition-No Notification under 
Section 48( I Hf eld Cowt cannot take notice of subsequent disinclination on D 
the pa1t of beneficiOly. 
For acquisition of 5 acres of land a notification under section 4(1) 
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on September ·11, 1970; a 
declaration under section 6 was published on July 29, 1971 and the award 
was made on September 15, 1971. Before the publication of the notification 
under section 4(1) i.e. on June 17, 1968 respondents 1-3 had purchased 
three plots from the original owner-Usmanshahi Mill. However, no muta-
tion was effected in their names and therefore notices were not issued to 
them. Respondents 1-3 sold these plots to respondent No. 4. The High 
Court quashed acquisition in respect of three plots of respondents 1-3 on 
the ground that notices required under law have not been issued to them. 
Against the decision of the High Court State preferred appeal before this 
Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not 
require the service of the personal notice nor the one under section 6 
declaration. What is needed to be served in the locality and the Gazette 
have been complied with. Since mutation had not been effected in the name 
E 
F 
G 
of respondents 1-3 though land was purchased prior to the publication of H 
39 
40 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
notification under section 4(1), they could not be issued notices as re-
quired under section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent is obviously impos-
sible, since the award had already been made on September 15, 1971. His 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. purchase thereafter is obviously illegal as it does not bind the State after 
the notification under section 4(1) was p_ublished. Therefore, the High 
Court was wholly unjustified in quashing acquisition in respect of three . 
plots of land of respondents 1-3. (41-A-C] 
2. So long as there is no notification published under section 48(1) 
of the Act withdrawing from the acquisition, the Court cannot take notice 
of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary. (41-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1430 of 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.79 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 92 of 1975. 
S.M. Jadhav for the Appellants. 
V.B. Joshi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order 
dated July 18, 1979.made in Special Civil Application No. 92/75 by the High 
Court of Bombay. Notification under section 4(1) acquiring an extent of 
about 5 acres of land was published in the State Gazette on September 17, 
p 
1970 for public purpose, namely construction of staff quarters for 
Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees. Declaration under 
section 6 was published on July 29, 1971. The award also was made on 
September 15, 1971.. It would appear that respondents 1-3 had purchased 
three plots of land from Usmanshahi Mills ":hich was under liquidation 
through the Official Liquidator on June 17, 1968. But the mutation of their 
G names in the revenue records was not effected. In consequence, notices 
could not be issued. They, in turn, sold these plots to 4th respondent in 
1973. A writ petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the 
validity of the notification and also the award. The High Court set aside 
the notification on th~ ground that notices as required under law have not 
H been served on respondents 1-3. 
-
STATE v. U. RAJABHAU 
41 
It is seen that section 4(1) does not require the service of the A 
personal notice nor the one under section 6 declaration. What is needed 
to be served in the locality and the Gazette which have been complied with. 
As regards the notices under section 9 is concerned, it now transpires from 
the revenue records that the original owner namely Uscianshahi Mill was 
served. Since mutation had no

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