Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court adjudicated an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 18, 1979 in Special Civil Application No. 92 of 1975, which had quashed a land acquisition notification concerning three plots. The acquisition, initiated by the State of Maharashtra, was for a public purpose, namely construction of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 covering about five acres was published in the State Gazette on September 17, 1970; declaration under Section 6 was published on July 29, 1971; and the award was made on September 15, 1971. Respondents 1 to 3 had purchased three plots from Usmanshahi Mills (under liquidation through the Official Liquidator) on June 17, 1968, but their names were not mutated in revenue records. Consequently, notices could not be issued to them. They later sold these plots to the 4th respondent in 1973. A writ petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the validity of the notification and award. The High Court set aside the notification on the ground that notices required under law were not served on respondents 1 to 3. The Supreme Court examined the statutory notice requirements. It observed that Section 4(1) does not require personal notice, nor does Section 6 declaration; what is needed is publication in the locality and Gazette, which had been complied with. With respect to Section 9 notices, the revenue records showed that the original owner, Usmanshahi Mill, was served. Since mutation had not been effected in the names of respondents 1 to 3 even though they purchased prior to the Section 4(1) notification, they could not be issued notices under Section 9. Notice to the 4th respondent was impossible because the award had already been made on September 15, 1971, and his purchase thereafter was illegal and did not bind the State after publication of Section 4(1) notification. Therefore, the High Court was wholly unjustified in quashing the acquisition in respect of the three plots. It was brought to the Court's notice that after the High Court quashed the notification, no further steps were taken by the Government. The Court held that this was not necessary since the matter was challenged in appeal. A submission was made that the Corporation did not need the three plots for employees. The Court ruled that as long as no notification under Section 48(1) of the Act withdrawing from acquisition was published, the Court could not take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the writ petition stood dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Notice Requirements - Sections 4(1) and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Publication in Locality and Official Gazette Sufficient - The High Court quashed acquisition of three plots on the ground that notices were not served on respondents 1-3 who had purchased the plots before Section 4(1) notification but had not got their names mutated in revenue records. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) and Section 6 do not require personal service; only publication in the locality and Gazette is required, which was complied with. Held that the High Court was wholly unjustified in quashing the acquisition on that ground. B) Land Acquisition - Subsequent Purchaser and Withdrawal - Sections 9 and 48(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - No Notice to Subsequent Purchaser Required; Section 48(1) Notification Necessary for Withdrawal - Notice under Section 9 was served on the original owner Usmanshahi Mill, which was sufficient because mutation had not been effected in favor of respondents 1-3. Purchase by the 4th respondent after the Section 4(1) notification and award was illegal and did not bind the State. As long as no notification under Section 48(1) withdrawing from acquisition was published, the Court could not take notice of any subsequent disinclination on the part of the beneficiary. Held that the appeal should be allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in quashing the acquisition notification for non-service of personal notices on respondents 1-3 under Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and whether the subsequent sale to the 4th respondent after the award barred the challenge.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed; no costs. High Court order quashing acquisition set aside.
Law Points
- Personal service not required under Sections 4(1) and 6
- publication in locality and Gazette sufficient
- notice under Section 9 to original owner sufficient if mutation not effected
- subsequent purchase after Section 4(1) illegal and not binding on State
- Section 48(1) withdrawal requires notification
- court cannot consider beneficiary's disinclination
