Supreme Court of India
DEEPAK PAHWA ETC.versusLT. GOVERNER OF DELHI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 152
- Decided
- 22 August 1984
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
Section 4(1) requires contemporaneity, not strict simultaneity, of Gazette publication and public notice; the 30‑day period under Section 5‑A runs from the later of the two, and pre‑notification delay does not invalidate the use of Section 17(4).
Summary
The petitioners challenged a combined notification under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and a declaration under Section 6, on two grounds: a 29‑day delay between the Gazette publication and the public notice of the notification, and an eight‑year inter‑departmental discussion suggesting no urgency for invoking Section 17(4) to dispense with the enquiry under Section 5‑A. The Supreme Court held that Section 4(1) requires the Gazette publication and the public notice to be contemporaneous, not strictly simultaneous, and a reasonable gap does not invalidate the notification unless it is so large as to raise suspicion of bad faith. The 30‑day objection period under Section 5‑A is to be counted from whichever is later – the Gazette publication or the public notice. Moreover, a long pre‑notification delay does not defeat the invocation of the urgency clause in Section 17(4). Consequently, the special leave petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of a 29‑day gap between Gazette publication and public notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether an eight‑year pre‑notification delay negates the applicability of the urgency provision of Section 17(4).
- The proper interpretation of "the issue of the notification" for computing the 30‑day objection period under Section 5‑A.
- Whether Section 4(1) mandates simultaneous publication and public notice.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 17(4), s. 4(1), s. 4(2), s. 5-A, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionSection 4(1) noticePublic noticeContemporaneitySection 5-A objection periodSection 17(4) urgencyPre‑notification delayStatutory interpretation
Judgment
A
DEEPAK PAHWA ETC.
v.
•
LT. GOVERNER OF DELHI AND ORS.
8 August 22, 1984
[0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
c (i) Section 4(1)-Requirements of-Wiren satisfied-Whether conte1np!ates •
giving public notice of substance of notification in the locality sim1dtaneously
wUh pub/icat:on of notification in Official Gazette-Whether delay in giving
pubUc notice makes notification invalid. Held-Public notice must be con-
temporaneous though not si1nultaneous-Contemporaneity Involves gap of time
-But not long gap-In case of large gap further probe necessary. •
D (ii) Section 5~A-Interpretation of-Expression 'the issue of the notification'
signifies completion of twin process of publication of notification and giving
public notice in the' locality. The period of 30 days to be reckoned from date
of publication of notification or date of giving public notice which~ver
is later.
..
E (iii) Section 17(4)-Whether mere pre-notificatz'on delay renders invocati'on
of urgency pro1Jisions of s. 17(4) void.
A combined notification under ss.4 and 17 and a declaration under
s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which were published in the Official
Gazette in regard to the acquisition of certain lands were challenged in a
wfit petition before the High Court on two grounds : ( 1) that there was
F delay of 29 days in giving public notice of the substance of notification in
the locality after the publication of the notification under s. 4 in the
Gazette and that delay was fatal to the notification itself, and (2) that
since the matter was under correspondence between various departments
of the Government for nearly eight years before the notification and the
declaration were published in the Gazette, that showed that there was
no urgency necessitating invocation of s. 17(4) of the Act to dispense with
G the enquiry under s. 5-A. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
in limine. The present special leave petitioa.s were directed against
dismissal of the writ petition.
Dismissing the special leaye petitions,
H HELD ; Section 4( I) of the Land Acquisition Act does not pres•
i>EEi>Ai .t>Ailw.i. v. i.1. GOVERNER
cribe that public notice of the substance of the notification should be given A
in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the notification in
the Official Gazetter or immediately thereafter. Publication in the Official
Gazette and public notice in the locality are two vital steps required to be
taken under s. 4(1) before proceeding to take the next step of entering
upon the land under s. 4(2). Tfle time factor is not the vital element of
s. 4( t) and there is no warrant for reading the words 'simultaneously' or
'immediately thereafter' into s. 4(1). But since the steps contemplated B
't bys. 4(2) cannot be undertaken unloss publication is made and public
notice given as contemplated bys. 4(1), it ~s implicit that the publication
and the public notice must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous
or immediately after one another. Naturally contemporaneity may
involve a gap of time and by the very nature of the things, the
publication in the Official Gazette and the public notfce in the locality
must necessarily be separated by a gap of time. This does not C•
mean that the publication and the public notice may be separated by a
• Jong interval of time. What is necessary, is that the continuity of action
should not appear to be broken by a deep gap. If there is publication
in the aazette and if there is public notice in the locali~y, the requirements
of s. 4(1) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from each
other by a gap of time so large as 1nay lead one to the prima facie conclusion
of lack of bona fides in the procecidiags for acquisition. If the notification D
and the public notice are separated by such a large gap of time it may
become necessary to probe further to discover if there is any cause for the
delay and that if the" detaY has caused pre-judice to any one.
[S92B-H and 593 A-B]
The submission that if the publication of the notification in the
Gazette is not immediately followed by public notice in the locality, it may E
lead to a denial to the person interested of an opportunity to object to the
acquisition under s. 5-A, has no force. Section 5-A provides that any
person interested in any land which has been notified under s. 4(1) may
object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality within
30 days after the issue of the notification. The section does not refer
either to the date of publication in the Official Gazette or the date of-
public notice of the '\ubstance of the notification in the locality. It speaks
of 'the issue of the notification which, in the context, can only signify the F
completion of the prescribed process--rather the twin process-of notifying
the interested public of the proposed acquisition in the manner provided,
for bys. 4(1J, that is by publication in the Official Gazette and .giving
public notice in the locality. Therefore, the _period of 30 daYs may be
reckoned from either the date of publication in the Gazette or the date of
public notice ·of the substance of the notification in the locality, whichever
is later. [S93C G]
0
/
. .
Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, [1967] I S.C.R. 120, Narinderjit
Singh v. State of Ul/ar Pradesh, AIR .1973 S.C. 552, State of Mysore v.
Abdul Rajak, AIR 1973 S.C. 2361 and Anjuman Ahmediyya, Muslint Mission
v. State AIR 1980 A.P. 246, referred to: · ·
Sanjivaiah Nagar Depressed and Backward C/ayses Sangh v, District H,
596 SUPREME COURT li.EPOR'fS [1985] I s.c.R.
A' Colle.tor, Hyderabad, AIR 1983 A.P. 142 and Smt. Shahnaz Salima v.
Govt. of A.P., W.P. No. 3353/76 decided by a Full Bench or Andhra
Pradesh High Court on Sept. 26, 1978, approved.
•
Satish Kapur v. State of Haryana, AIR 1982 P. and H 276, Rattan
Singh v State, AIR 1976 Pand H 279 (F.B.), C. Suryanarayana v. Govt.
of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 A.P. 17 and A1oham1nsd Khawaza v. Govt.
B of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1982 N.O.C. 270 (A.P.), overruled.
••
It is not possible to agree with the submission that mere pre-notifica-
tion delay_ would render the invocation of the urgency provisions void.
Very often persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired make
various representations to the concerned authorities against the proposed
acquisition. This is bound to result in a multiplicity of enquiries, communi-
c cations and discussions leading invariably to delay in the execution of even
urgent projects. Very often the delay makes the problem more and more
acute and increases the urgency of the necessity for acquisition.
•
[596H; 597A and 596G H]0
Jaga Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971S.C1033 and Kashi Reddy
Papalah v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesli. AIR 1975 A.P. 269, referred to.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 9013·9014 of 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 3rd August, 1984 !
of the. Delhi High Court in C. W. No. 1890 and 1891of1984)
E
Dr. L. M. Singhvi and Mrs. Bharatl Anand for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CuiNNAPPA REDDY, J. We are dismissing both the Special
Leave Petitions. But' we propose to give our reasons for doing so,
F
which we do not &enerally do, as our attention has been invited to
some judgments of High Courts which we consider have been •
wrongly decided, proceeding as they do on a misunderstanding of
some observations of this Court. A combined notification under
ss. 4 and 17 and a declaration under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act were published in the Delhi Extraordinary Gazette on 18. 6. 1984
G in regard to the acquisition of certain lends iJJc the Village Bijwasan
for the purpose of construction of a 'New Transmitting Station for
the Delhi Airport'. Public Notice of the substance of the noti·
fication under s. 4 was alleged to have been given in the locality on •
17. 7. 1984. It was also alleged that the matter was under correspon-
dence between various departments of the Government, for nearly
B eight years before the notification and the declaration were publi·
DEEPAK PAHWA v. LT. GOVERNER (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 591
sh'd in the G1zette. A Writ Petition was filed in the Delhi High A
Court impugning the notification and the declaration on two
grounds. The first was that the delay of 29 days in giving public
notice of the substance of notification in the locality after the
publication of the notification under s. 4 in the Gazette was fatal
to the notification itself. The second was that the very circumstance
that a period of eight years was spent in interdepartmental discussion B
' showed that there was no urgency necessitating the invocation of s. I 7
(4) of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with the enquiry under s.
5-A. The High Court d;smissed the Writ Petition in limine and
the present Special Leave Petitions are directed against such dismis-
sal. The very two questions which were raised before the High
Court were again urged before us and reliance was placed by Dr• c
• L. M. Singhvi, learned couusel for the petitioners, on Narinderjit
Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh,(1 ) Rattan Singh v. State,( 2) S. K.
Gupta v. Union oj !ndia,(3! SatiS/z Kapur v. State of Haryana<'> and
C. Suryanarayana v. Govt. of Andhra Prailesh.( 6 ! In addition, we
have also perused Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (6 ) State of
D
Mysore v. Abdul Rajak,<7! Mohammad Khawaza v. Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh(') and Sanjivaiah Nagar Depressed and Backward Classes
Sangh v. District Collector, Hyderabad.(').
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is as follows :-
(I) "Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government
that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be E
needed for any public purpos!', a notification to that
, effect shall be published in the Official Gazette, and
the Collector shall cause public notice of the sub-stance
of such notification to be given at convenient places in
the said locality.
• (2) Thereupon it shall be lawful for any officer, either F
generally or specially authorised by such Governm~nt
in this behalf, and for his servants and workmen :-
(D AIR 1973 S. C. 552
(2) AIR I976 P & H 279 (F. B)
(3) ,AIR 1977 Delhi 209 G
(4) AIR 1982 P & H 276
(SJ AIR 1983 A. p, 17.
(6) AIR 1967 S. C. 1704= 1967 (1) S. C.R. 120.
(7) AIR 1973 S. C. 2361.
(8) AIR 1982 N. 0. C 270 (A. P.)
(9) AIR 1983 A. P. 142. II
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] l s.c.R.
A to enter upon and survey and take levels of any j,
;
land in such locality; to dig or bore into the sub-
soil; to do all other acts necessary to ascertain whe-
ther the land is adapted for such purpose; '
to set out tho boundaries of the \and proposed to
B be taken and the intended line of the work if any
proposed to be made thereon;
to mark such levels, boundaries and line, by pla-
cing marks and cutting trenches; and
where otherwise the survey cannot be completed
and the levels taken and the boundaries and line
c
marked, to cut down and clear away any part of
any standing crop, fence or jungle.
Provided that no person shall enter into any building
or npon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling
D
house unless wit\ the consent of the occupier thereof with- •
out previously giving such occupier at least seven days'
notice in writing of his intention to do so."
It may be noticed at once that s. 4 (1) does not prescribe
that public notice of the substance of the notification should be
given in the locality simultaneously with the publication of the
E notification in the Official Gazette or immediately thereafter. Publi-
cation in the Official Gazette and public notice in the locality are
two vital steps required to be taken under s. 4 (1) before proceeding
to take the next step of entering upon the land under s. 4 (2). The
time factor is not a vital element of s. 4 (l) and there is no warrant '
for reading the words 'simultaneouly' or 'immediately thereafter'
F into s. 4 (1). Publicat!on in the Official Gazette and public notice
in the locality are the essential elements of s. 4 (I) and not the
simultaneity or immediacy of the Publication and the Public Notice.
•
But since the steps contemplated by s. 4 (2) cannot be undertaken
unless publication is made and public notice given as contemplated
bys. 4 (1), it is implicit that the publication and the public notice
must be contemporaneous though not simultaneous or immediately
G
after one another. Naturally contemporneity may involve a gap
of time and by the very nature of the things, the publication in the
Official Gazette and the public notice in the locality must necessarily
be sep~rated by a gap of time. This does not mean that the publi-
H
cation and the public notice may be separated by along interval of
time. What is necessary, is that the continufty of action should not
appear to be broken by a deep gap. If there is publication in the Gaz- I
DEEPAK PAHWA v. LT. GOVERNER (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 593
ette and if there is public notice in the locality, the requirements of A
s. 4 (I) must be held to be satisfied unless the two are unlinked from
each other by a gap of time so large as may lead one to the prima
facie conclusion of lack of bona fides in the proceedings for acqui-
sition. lf the notification and the public notice are separated by
such a large gap of time it may become necessary to probe further
to discover if there is any cause for the delay and if the delay has B
• caused prejudice to anyone.
We may consider here an argument which is usually advanced
against any time gap between the publication in the Official Gazette
and the public notice in the locality. Section 5-A provides that
any person interested in any land which has been notified under s. c
• 4 (!) maf object to the acquisition of the land or of any~3nd in the
locality within 30 days after the issuo of the notification. It is,
therefore, suggested that 1f the publication of the no!Jfication in
the Gazette is not immediately followed by a public notice in the
locality, it may lead to a demal to the person interested of an
opportunity to object to the acquisition. We think, that this is D
too narrow an interpretation of s. 5-A. Notice to interested persons
of a proposed acquLition of land is given by publicising a notifica-
tion to the effect that land in any locality is needed or is likely to
• be needed for any public purpose in two ways-first, by causing
publication of the substance of the notification to be given at
convenient places in the locality. There is no reason to confine the E
period of 30 days prescribed by s. 5-A to one mode. The period
of 30 days may be reckoned from either the date of publication in
• the gazette or the date of public notice of the substance of the
notificat!on in the locality, whichever is later. In our view, that
is the only reasonable and practical way of construing s. 5-A so as
to advance the object of that provision, which is to provide a F
• reasonable opportunity to interested persons to oppose the acqui-
sition. We particularly notice that s. 5· A does not refer either to
the date of publication ir1 the Official Gazette or the date of public
notice of the substance of the notification in the locality. It speaks
of 'the issue of the notification'. This we consider is significant
and, in the context, the words 'the issue of the notification' can only G
signify the completion of the prescribed process-rather, the twin
process-of notifiing the interested public of the proposed acquisition
• in the manner provided for bys. 4 (1), that is by publication in the
Official Gazette and giving public notice in the locality.
In K/zub Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra),
this Court (Subba Rao, CJ. and Shela!, J.) ruled out the contentioµ Q
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS fl 985) 1 S C.R.
A that public notice under s. 4 (1) was not' mandatory, and held that
both publication in the Official Gazette and publi.c notice in the
locality were pre-requisites to further action under s. 4 (2) of the
Land Acquisition Act. Non-compliance with dther of the requisites
would render the land acquisition proceedings void. In Narinderjit
Singh v. State ~f Uttar Pradesh (supra), the question was about the
B effect of the failure to cause public notice of the substance of the
notification to be given at convenient places in the locality. The •
view taken in Khub Chand' s case was reaffirmed and it was further
pointed out that the dispensing with of the enquiry contemplated
bys. 5-A by the issuance of a notification under s. 17 (4) would
make no difference to the necessity for strict compliance with both
c the requisites of s. 4 (1 ). Jt was said :
•
"In our judgment the provisions of Section 4 (1)
cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and direc-
tory in another. Section 4 (!) doos not contemplate any
distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise
'
D of the power under Section 17 ( 4) the appropriate govern-
ment directs that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not
apply and whore such a direction has not been made dis-
pensing with the applicability of Sec. 5-A. It lays down
in unequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be •
simut/aneous/y done under Section 4 (I), i.e. a notification
E has to be published in the officbl gazette that the land is
likely to be needed for any public purpose and the Collec-
tor has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such
notification at convenient places in the locality in which •
the land is situated. The scheme of Section 4 is that after
the steps contemplated under sub-section (I) have been
F taken the officer authorised by the Government can do the
various acts set out in sub-section (2)." •
The observation that "both things have to be simultaneously
done" has led some High Courts to conclude that simultaneity of
publication in the gazette and public notice in the locality is a
mandatory condition of s. 4 (1) and so to import an obsessive time
G factor. It is not so. What was apparently meant to be conveyed
was that both things had to be done before the various acts set out
in sub-s~ction (2) could be undertaken. The question whether the
publication in the Official Gazette and the public notice in the
locality had to be simultaneous or whether there could be a gap of time
was not an issue at all in that case. In State of Mysore v. Abdul
H Rajak (supra), this Court referring to s. 4 (l) held, "the sectioll
bEEPAk PAHWA v. LT. GOVERNER (Chinnappa Reddy, J,, 595
prescribes two requirements, namely, (I) a notification to be publi- A
shed in the Official Gazette and (2) the Collector causing to give of
the substance of such notificatwn to be given at convenient places
in the concerned locality", and, "unless both these conditions are
satisfied, s. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be said to have
been comploed''. The court also added "It is only when the
notification is published in the Official Gazette and it is accompained B
• or immediately followed by the public notice, that a person inte-
- rested in the property proposed to be acquired can be regarded to
have notice of the proposed acquisition". This sentence alongwith
the sentence "both things have to be simultaneously done under s.
4 (1)" occuring in Narinde1jit Singh's case have led to some confu-
c
sion in some decisions of the High Courts. We have already
• explained the observation in the Narinde1jit Singh'.i case. We are
unable to read the observations in State of Mysore v. Abdul Rajak
as laying down any general principle that every time-gap between
the publication in the Gazette and the public notice i.1 the locality
is fatal to the acqu.sition Apart from the physical impossibility of D
synchronising the publication i11 the Gazette and the public notice
in the locality, one can visualiso a variety of circumstances which
may bring about a time-gap between the two. There may be a
break down of communications, there may be a strike or bandh as
• happened in one of the reported cases in Andhra Pradesh Anjuman
Ahmediyya, Muslim Mission v. Statet 1) or there may be some other E
justifiable reason. This court did not lay down any general principle
that an acquisition would be regarded as avoid if the notification
' published in the Official Gazette was not accompanied or immedia-
tely followed by the public notice. What in fact appears to have
been said was that a person interested in the property can be regar-
ded to have had notice of the proposed acquisition if F
both the requirements of s. 4 (1) are complied with whether simul-
" taneously or one after the other. As we said no invariable rule was
laid down that an acquisition would be regarded as void whenever
there was a gap of time between the publication in the Gazette and
the public notice in the locality.
We do not think that it is necessary to refer to the decisions G
of the High Courts in detail except to say that we consider Satish
Kapur v. State of Haryana, Rattan Singh v. State, Suryanarayana
Reddy v. Andhra Pradesh and Mohd. Khawaza v. Govt. of A. P. were
• wrongly decided and that Sa11iiraia/1 Nagar Depressed and Backward
Classes Sangh v. Di,,trict Collector, Hyderabad was rightly decided,
(I). AIR 1980 A. P, 246. H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.R.
A In the last mentioned case, there is reference to several earlier Divi-
sion Bench judgments and the judgment of the Full Bench which
the learned judges had followed. In particular, the learned judges
have referred to the following observations of a Full Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Shahnaz Sa/ima v. Govt. of A.P.
(a decision which for some unknown reason has not been reported in
B in any of the Law Reports);
"There is no warrant for the contention that the publi- •
cation in the official Gazette and the publication of the
substance of the notification at convenient places in the said
locality should be simultaneous and be clone precisely at the
c same time. If that were the intention of the Legislature, ti
could have said so. Something which is not in the section
cannot be imported into it. The publication of the s'~bstance
of S. 4 (1) notificatioa at convenient places in the locality is
•
required out of anxiety of the Legislature to make it certain
that it is brought to the notice of the affected per sons.
D What all that is required is that before any thing is <lone as
contemplated by sub-sec. (2), the substance of S. 4 (I) noti-
fication must be published in the locality of the land.
Several times it may prove to be a physical impossibitity if
simultaneous publication is insisted upon. It is not possible
E to think that the Legislature has provided for an impracti- •
cable and at the same time unnecessary task. What S. 4 (!)
requires is that S. 4 (I) notification must be published in
the official Gazette and its substance at convenient places in
the said locality."
•
We agree with these observations.
F The other ground of attack is that if regard is had to the
considerable length of time spent on interdepartmen.tal OJScussion
before tbe notification under S. 4 (]) was published, it would be •
apparent that there was no justification for invoking the urgency
clause under s. 17 (4) and dispensing with the enquiry under s. 5-A,
We are afraid, we cannot agree with this contention. Very often
G · persons interested in the land proposed to be acquired make various
representations to the concerned authorities against the proposed
acquisition. This is bound to result in a multiplicity of enquiries,
communications and discussions leading invariably to delay in the
execution of even urgent projects. Very often the delay makes the •
problem more and more acute and increases the mgen~y of the neces-
ff sity for acquisition. It is, therefore, not possible to agree wllh
DEEPAIC PAHWA v. LT. GOVERNER (Chinnappa ii.eddy, J.) 597
the submission that more pre-notification delay would render the A
invocation of the urgency provisions void. We however wish to say
nothing about post-notification delay. In Jaga Ram v. State of
Haryana,rb this court pJinted out "the fact that the State Govern-
ment or the party concerned was lethargic at an earlier stage is not
very relevant for deciding the question whether on the date on which
the notification was issued, there was urgency' or not." In Kasi B
Rfddy Papoiah v Govt of Andlzra Pradesh, r2, it was held, "Delay
, on the part of the tardy officials to take further action in the matter
of acquisition is not sufficient to nullify the urgency which existed
at the time of the issue of the notification and to hold that there
was never any urgency." !n the result both the submissions of the
learned counsel for the peLtioners are rejected and the spec;al leave c
petitions are dismissed .
•
H.S.K. Petitions dismissed .
•
•
•
•
'
• (I) AIR 1971 SC 1033.
(2) AIR 1975 A. P. 269.
l .
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search