STATE OF GUJARATversusPANCH OF NANI HAMAMS POLE & ORS,

    872

A
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                    Vo
                    PANCH OF NANI HAMAM'S POLE & ORS,

                            DECEMBER 19, 1985
B
                      [D,P, MADON AND G,L, OZA, JJ,J

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4 read with Rule l of the
    Bombay Rules as adopted by the State of Gujarat and s.9(3) -
    'Interested person 1 - Whether individual notice necessary -
    Absence of individual notice - Whether proceedings invalid.
c
          Acquisitlon proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,
    1894 in respect of the lands in possession of the respondents
    Nos. 2 and 3 were started and an award made. Respondents Nos. 2
    and 3 filed a civil suit for declaration that the acquisition
    proceedings and the award pursuant thereto were illegal and for
    an injunction restraining defendants from taking possession. It
D   was contended that no notice was given to t!lem under s.4 and 9(3)
    of the Act, that they were not aware of the land acquisition
    proceedings until their landlord told them that possession was to
    be handed over to the Government, that they were the tenants and
    had raised structures at their own costs and, therefore, in
    absence of individual notice to them the entire proceedings are
E   vitiated, The appellant-State contested the suit alleging that
    the notification under s.4 was published in the Gazette, and
    that apart, this notification as well as notices under ss, 9 and
    10 were also pasted on the site to be acquired and were also
    served on the persons known or believed to be interested in the
    land.
F
          The Trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that since the
    respondents had actual knowledge of the intended acquisition,
    failure to give individual notice under s,9(3) does not
    invalidate the acquisition proceedings. This order was confirmed
    by the First Appellate Court. In the Second Appeal by respon-
G   dents, the High Court set aside the acquisition proceedings
    relying on its earlier decision in Aebo"'-r Gorc!Mnbhaf v.
    State of Qijarat & Ora. and holding that under s.4 of the Act
    read with Rule l of the rules framed by the State Government
    under s.55 of the Act, service of notice on parties interested in
    the land is not only obligatory but a condition precedent arA,
H   therefore, the acquisition proceedings were bad and · granted
    injunction as prayed for,
                        STATE v, PANCH OF NANI                 873

                                                                     A
        In appeal to this Court by the State it was contended that
the respondents had challenged the proceedings on two grounds:
(i) that s.4 read with rule l of the Bombay Rules and adopted by
the State of Gujarat require a personal notice of intention to
acquire under s.4(1), and (ii) that under a.9(3) of the Act also
individual notice is necessary; but in the present caae, after
                                                                     B
the award was made, the respondents accepting the award filed a
suit against the landlord who was a party to the acquisition
proceedings and obtained a decree for their share of the
compenaation and, therefore, the objection under a.9(3) no longer
survives, that the High Court in a subsequent decision in the
case of Vuudev <>nmUal Pancholi y, State of Qajarat 8Dd Ora,
held that individual notice under a.4(1) read with Rule l is not
                                                                     c
necessary, and, therefore, Bule l of the rules framed under s.55
could not go beyond the requireaent under s,4(1) and to that
extent the rule :ts bad in law.

        Allowing the appeal,                                         D
      HELD : There are no words in Bule l indicating a personal
notice, What Rule l contemplates is a notice to the interested
parties as required under s.4(1) and s.4(1) requires the notice
to be notified at a convenient place in the locality for
information of the interested parties, It is, therefore, clear
                                                                     E
that by reading s.4(1) with Rule l it could not be interpreted to
mean that a personal notice to each and every interested person
is the requirement of s.4 and in absence of such a notice the
proceedings of acquisition will be invalidated. [877 E-{;j

      In the instant case, the procedure laid down in a.4(1) of
the Act was followed and, therefore, it could not be said that       F
the notice as contemplated under s.4(1) read with i!ul.e l was not
given to parties interested and, therefore, it could not be held
that the proceedings of acquisition are bad in law. [878 A-BJ

      Asboklwmar Gordbanbhai Vo State of Qajarat & Ors,, 10
Gujarat Law Beporter 503 overruled.                                  G
      Vaaudev Qumi!al Pancholi Vo State of Qajarat and Ors.,
25(2) Gujarat Law Beporter 844 and Bai Helium etc. v. State of
Qijarat & Ors., A.1.R. 1978 s.c. 515 approved.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. l464(N) of
1972.
                                                                     H
    874                SUPREME COURT REPORTS    [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 8. 7.1970 of the Gujarat
A   High Court in S,A, No. 45 of 1963.

          G.A. Shah, Girish Chandra, R,N, Poddar and C.V. Subba Rso
    for the Appellant.

          H.J. Zaveri for the Respondents. (Not present)
B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          OZA, J. This appeal is by special leave granted by this
    Court against the judgment o'f Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in
    Civil Second Appeal No. 45 of 1963.
c       Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed a suit No. 1476 of 1958 in
  the Court of Joint Civll Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad for
  declaration that the proceedings and award in land acquisition
  case No. L.A.Q. 1496 were illegal and for injunction restraining
  the defendants, the Panch of Nain llamam's Pole of Gujarat and the
  State of Gujarat from doing any act affecting the plaintiff's
  possession of Municipal Census Nos. 605 and 605/1 and Census Nos.
D 1335 to 1337 of Shahpur Ward II and the superstructure standing
  thereon situsted in Nain llamam, Ahmedabad.

        These lands were acquired by acquisition proceedings under
  Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After Notifications under Section 4
  and 6, the acquisition proceedings proceeded further for
E
  determination of compensation and an award was made.

        The grievance made by Plaintiff/Respondents Nos.l and 2 was
  that no notice was given to them personally under Section 4 and
  Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act and that they were not
F aware of the Land acquisition proceedings till their landlord
  defendant ~o.l told them that possession of these lands were to
  be handed over to the Government on 22nd July, 1958, Their
  contention i& that they were the tenants of respondent No,l in
  respect of the acquired land and has raised structures thereupon
  at their own costs. Being the tenants in the lands acquired and
  being the occupants of the structures standing on the lands they
G were entitled to individual notices under section 4(1) and 9(3)
  of the Act and in absence of such notices, the entire proceedings
  are vitiated.

        The present appellant, the State of Gujarat, in their
H written statement pleaded that the notification under section 4
                 STATE V• PANCH OF NANI (OZA, J.]            875

                                                                    A
apart from being published in the Gazette was pasted on the site
and was served on the persons known or believed to be interested.
Similarly notices under section 9 and 10 were also pasted on the
site to be acquired and were also served on the persons known or
believed to be interested in the land.
                                                                    B
      The Trial Court held that as plaintiffs/respondents Nos.2
and 3 are persons interested in the acquired land were entitled
to individual notices under Section 9(2) of the Act and no nctice
was served on them as the acquisition authorities did not know
that the plaintiffs/respondents are interested in the land as
their names did not appear in ~he City Survey Records. The Trial    c
Court further held that the plaintiffs/respondents had actual
knowledge of the intended acquisition and as such failure to give
individual notice does not invalidate the acquisition
proceedings. The Trial Court therefore dismissed the suit.

      The plaintiffs/respondents preferred an appeal but the        D
First Appellate Court maintained the judgment of the Trial Court
and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents preferred a
second appeal to the High Court and raised the same contentions.
The High Court upheld the contentions and set aside the acquisi-
tion proceedings. The High Court placing reliance on the earlier
decision of the High court in Asholdwmar Gordhanbhai v. State of    E
Gujarat & Ors., 10 Gujarat Law Reporter 503 held that under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Rule 1 of the
rules framed by the State Government under Section 55 of the Act,
service of notice on parties interested in the land is not only
obligatory but a condition precedent and therefore on this count
held the acqtlisition proceedings to be bad and it also granted
injunction restraining the State Government from interfering with   F
the possession of the plaintiffs of the property. The High Court
refused the certificate under Art. 133 and therefore this appeal
has been preferred after obtaining a certificate from this Court.

      Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the
respondents/plaintiffs challenged the proceedings on two grounds;   G
(i) on the ground that Section 4 read with Rule 1 of the Gujarat
rules require a personal notice of intention to acquire under
Section 4(1); (ii) the proceedings were also challenged on the
ground that under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act also
the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to individual notice.
But it was contended by learned counsel that so far as objection
under Section 9(3) is concerned it would only invalidate the        H
award, but in the present case as after the award was made, the
plaintiffs/respondents accepting the award filed a suit against
    876               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP, 3 s.c.R

A the landlord who was a party to the acquisition proceedings and
  obtained a decree for his share of the compensation. That having
  been done the question of objection under section 9(3) now is no
  longer of any consequence. He, therefore, contended that the only
  question which deserves consideration in this appeal is about the
  notice under section 4 to the plaintiffs/respondents in view of
B Rule 1 of the rules framed under section 55 of the Land Acquisi-
  tion Act which are known as Bombay Rules adopted by the State of
  Gujarat.

        It was contended that following the decision of the Gujarat
  High Court in Asboklwmar Gordhanbhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
  Gujarat High court, in the present case held that as notices to
c the plaintiff sf respondents were not served as required in Rule 1
  the proceedings of acquisition are invalidated. tut it was
  contended by the learned counsel that this view was not followed
  by Gujarat High Court in a subsequent decision in Vaaudev
  Qumilal Pancholi v. State of Gujarat 8lld Ors., 25(2) Gujarat Law
  Reporter 844, In this decision, the High Court following the
  decision in Bai llalimabu etc. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., A. I.R.
D 1978 S,C, 515, held that individual notice under section 4(1)
  read with Rule 1 is not necessary. It was therefore contended
  that Rule l of the rules framed under section 55 could not go
  beyond that requirements under section 4(1) and to that extent
  the rule is bad in law. It was therefore contended that the High
  Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by
E plaintiffs/respondents.

          Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as it stood at the
    relevant time reads as under :

               "4, Publication of preliminary notification and powers
F              of officers thereupon. -(1) whenever it appears to the
               appropriate Government that land in anY locality is -
               needed or is likely to be needed for any public
               purpose, a notification to that effect shall be
               published in the Official Gazette and the Collector
               shall cause public notice of the substance of such
G              notification to be given at convenient places in the
               said locality."

       This provision contemplates the notification to be published
  in the Official Gazette indicating the intention of the State
  Government of acquisition for a public purpose and it further
H requires that the collector shall cause a public notice of the
                 S!All v. PANCR OF NANI [OZA, J,]             877


substance of such notification to be given at a convenient place     A
in the same locality. The purpose of this second part of section,
of giving a notice by the Collector by notifying it at a
convenient place in the locality appears lo be to intimate the
persons affected by the acquisition. Rule 1 which is 'relevant for
consideration reads as under :
                                                                     B
           "(!)whenever sny notification under section 4 of the
           Act hes been published but the provisions of the
           section 17 have not been applied and the Collector has
           under the provisions of Section 4(1) issued notices to
           the parties interested; and on or before the last day
           fixed by the Collector in those notices in this behalf    C
           any objection is lodged under e·.rtion 5-A (2),
           firstly, the Collector shall record the objection in
           his proceedings, Secondly, the Collector shall
           consider whether the objection is admissible according
           to these Rules".
                                                                     D
The relevant words in this Rule are: "Collector has under the
provisions of section 4(1) issued notices to the parties
interested;". It is these words on the basis of which, in the
impugned judgment, the Righ Court felt that a personal notice to
the persons interested is mandatory proviS:ion and in absence of
such a notice the proceedings of acquisition will be invalidated.    E
In fact there are no words in this rule indicating a personal
notice. What has been indicated is that the Collector has issued
notice to the parties interested under provisions of section
4(1), Section 4(1) quoted above indicates the manner in which a
notice will be given to the parties interested. And that is by
getting a public notice having the substance of the notification
given at a convenient place in the said locality. Therefore, what    F
Rule l   contemplates is a notice to the interested parties as
required under section 4(1) and section 4(1) requires the notice
to be notified at a convenient place in the said locality for
information of the interesi:ed parties .. It is, therefore, clear
that by reading section 4(1) with -Rule 1 it could not be
interpreted to mean that a personal notice to each and every         G
interested person is the requirement of section 4 and in absence
of such a notice the proceedings of acquisition will be
invalidated. The Righ Court in the impugned judgment placing
reliance on Ashokkumar Gonlhanhhaf v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(supra) came to the conclusion that as such an individual notice
was served in the present case, the proceedings of acquisition
are bad in law. As discussed earlier, reading of section 4(1)        H
    878                  SUPREl'JE COURT REPORTS   (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R


A with Rule l does not provide for an individual notice but only
    requires a notice as contemplated under section 4(1)         to the
    interested persons. The manner in which the notice is to be given
    is provided in sec~ion 4(1) itself by publication of the
    substance of     the notification at    a convenient   place in the
  locality. It is not in dispute that such a procedure was followed
B and thereforo it could not be said that the notice as contempla-
  ted under section 4 (l) ·read with Rule l was not given to parties
  interested and therefore it could not be held that the proceed-
  ings of acquisition are bad in law. 1he High Court therefore was
  in error and the view taken could not be maintained.

       In Bai Malimabu etc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. this Court
C while considering the language of Rule 30-E of the Gujarat Rules
  which is n.ore or less similar to Rule l quoted above took the
    view as under:

               "hr. tiagarasheth then submitted that no special notice
               was given to the appellants of the notification under
               section 4(1) as required by the Gujarat Rules, the
0              objections filed by the appellant under section 5-A
               were not properly inquired into and heard•· the State
               Government did not give any opportunity to them to
               make their submissions vis-a-vis the report submitted
               hy the Collector, and the aforesaid infirmities
               vitiated the declaration under section 6 of the Act.
E              The high Court has rightly held that no special notice
               was necessary to be given to the appellants in regard
               to the notification under section 4(1), Our attention
               was drawn to the alleged Rule 30-B of the Gujarat
               Rules in support of the contention that such notice
               was necessary to be issued to the parties interested.
F              There is no such requirement in the said Rule. It
               merely pre-supposes that the Collector has issued
               notices to the parties interested under section 4(1),
               The requirement of the section is giving of a general
               notice and by two methods (l) by publication of the
               notification in the Official Gazette and (2) causing
G              public notice of the substance of such notification to
               be given at convenient places in the locality. The
               appellants do not contend that there was no compliance
               with the requiren:ents aforesaid. Proper inquiry was
               held under section 5-A of the Act and full opportunity
               was given to the appellants. It was not the require-
H              ment of the law to give any further opportunity after
                 STATE v. PANCH OF NANI [OZA, J.]               879

                                                                      A
           a report was made to the State Government. It is the
           function of the State Government to consider the
           report of the Collector and proceed further in the
           matter as they think fit and proper to do. 11
                                                                      B
      In the light of the discussion above, therefore, the appeal
is allowed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the
High Court in Civil Second Appeal No. 45 of 1963 are set aside
and the said second Appeal is dismissed. There will be no order
as to costs throughout. Security amount deposited shall be            c
refunded to the appellant.




A.P.J.                                              Appeal allowed.