Supreme Court of India
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.AversusJ. SIVAPRAKASAM & ORS.
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 788
- Decided
- 18 November 2010
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
Publication of the preliminary notification in any two newspapers that circulate in the locality, even if not of wide circulation, satisfies Section 4(1) and, together with actual or implied notice, validates the acquisition.
Summary
The Special Deputy Collector of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority sought to acquire 4.89 acres of land for the Koyambedu Wholesale Market Complex, issuing a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) and a final declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification was published in the official Gazette and two regional language newspapers, "Madurai Mani" and "Kadiravan", whose circulation in Chennai was contested as being insufficient. The petitioners, comprising the legal heirs of the deceased owner and subsequent purchasers/lessees, argued that the publication in newspapers lacking reasonable circulation violated Section 4(1), denied them proper notice, and that the deceased owner's name should not appear on the notification. The Supreme Court held that while the newspapers did not have a "reasonably wide" circulation, the requirement of Section 4(1) is satisfied by publication in any newspapers that circulate in the locality, and actual or implied notice was established for the petitioners who had participated in the Section 5A enquiry. Consequently, the acquisition was deemed valid and the High Court's order quashing the notification was set aside. The appeal was allowed, upholding the acquisition and dismissing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether publication of the preliminary notification in two regional language newspapers that did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality complies with Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the petitioners were denied statutory notice and thus entitled to set aside the acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the use of the deceased owner's name in the notification invalidates the acquisition.
Legislation cited
- Amendment Act 68 of 1984
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 4, s. 5A, s. 6
Subjects
Land acquisitionPreliminary notificationSection 4(1) publication requirementNotice (actual, implied, constructive)Public purposeCirculation of newspapersValidity of acquisition
Judgment
[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 491
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND A
ACQUISITION C.M.D.A.
v.
J. SIVAPRAKASAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9740 of 2010)
B
NOVEMBER 18, 2010
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. 4 and 6 - Land
acquisition for public purpose - Preliminary Notification u/s. C
4 and a final declaration u/s. 6 - Validity of the Notification -
Challenged to, on the ground that notice uls. SA issued in the
name of the original owner (since qeceased) and not issued
to the legal heirs of the original owners of the land; and that
the preliminary Notification published in two regional language · D
newspapers which had no circulation in the locality -
Notification quashed by the High Court holding that two
regional language newspapers in which the Notification was
published did not have reasonably wide circulation in the
locality- On appeal, held: Two regional language newspapers E
were sold and circulated in the city and as a good chunk of
their total circulations was in the city, it cannot be said that
the said newspapers were not 'regional daily newspaper
circulating in the locality' - Entire acquisition cannot be
invalidated on the ground that the publication in the said two
F
newspapers did not fulfill requirement of publication in
'newspapers circulating in that locality' - Legal heirs of the
original owner took no steps to get the lands mutated in their
names and as such cannot complain about the absence of
publication or defective publication of the Notification - G
Subsequent purchasers and the tenant of the kaid lands had
notice of proposals for acquisition - Thus, ttie acquisition is
valid and upheld - Order passed by the High Court is set
aside.
491 H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A A preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) and a
final declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 were issued for acquisition of certain lands for
implementation of 'K' Wholesale Market Complex. The
preliminary Notification was published in the Gazette and
B in the two regional language newspapers. The registered
owner/pattadar of the said lands died in the year 1978
leaving behind his legal heirs-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who
took no steps to get the lands mutated in their names in
the revenue records. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 leased the
c said lands in favour of the eleventh respondent, a trust
for running an educational institution as also sold
portions of the said lands to respondents Nos. S to 10
who in turn, also granted a lease of their portions in
favour of the eleventh respondent. Respondent Nos. S to
10 and 11 received a notice from the appellant calling
0
them to appear in the enquiry under Section SA of the Act
and, thereafter, filed objections against the acquisition
proposal. The respondent Nos. 1 to 11 filed writ petitions
challenging the acquisition of land on the ground that the
acquisition was invalid since the preliminary Notification
E and final declarations were issued showing the name of
a dead person as the owner of the said lands; that
respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were not issued any notice in
regard to enquiry under Section SA of the Act; that the
preliminary Notification was published in two regional
F language newspapers which had no circulation in the
locality; and that the eleventh respondent was serving
the residents of 'K' and surrounding villages by using the
lands for running a school and college, thus, lands
should be excluded from acquisition. The Single Judge
G of the High Court allowed the writ petition. The Division
Bench of the High Court upheld the order. Therefore, the
appellants filed the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
H
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION 493
C.M.D.A. v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM
HELD: 1.1 Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, A
1894 requires publication of the preliminary Notification
by three modes : (i) publication in the official gazette; (ii)
publication in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality, at least one of which being in the regional
language; and (iii) causing public notice of the substance B
of such preliminary Notification to be given at convenient
places in the locality. [Para 14] [506-F-G]
1.2 The purpose of publication of the Notification is
two fold, first is to ensure that adequate publicity is given C
so that land owners and persons interested would have
an opportunity to file their objections under Section 5A
of the Act. Second is to put the land owners/occupants
on notice that government officers would be entering
upon the property for carrying on the activities
enumerated in section 4(2) of the Act. [Para 16] [507-H; D
508-A-B]
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd Shafi and
Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 168 - referred to.
E
1.3 The purpose of requiring publication of the
Notification in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality under Section 4(1) as amended by Amendment
Act 68 of 1984, is to give as wide a publicity to the
Notification as possible, as the State Gazettes do not F
have a wide circulation and causing public notice of the
substance of the Notification at convenient places in the
locality would give notice only in specific pockets in the
locality. Therefore, the legislature provided for publication
in two newspapers (of which at least one being in the
regional language) to have a wider reach. Having regard G
to the object and purpose of the provision, it is evident
that publication should be in newspapers which have a
reasonably good circulation in the locality. If the
publication is to be made in obscure newspapers having
only token or insignificant circulation, either to cut the H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A cost of publication or by way of political or official
patronage, that would defeat the very purpose of
providing for publication in newspapers. On the other
hand, if the words 'newspapers circulating in that locality'
are to be interpreted in a purely literal and normal sense,
B they would mean newspapers having a regular and
steady circulation among the general public in the locality,
irrespective of the number. In that sense even a
newspaper having 2% to 3% market share out of the total
circulation figures for regional newspapers sold in the
c locality, can be considered as a newspaper "circulating
in the locality". Therefore, where there is compliance with
the requirement relating to publication in two daily
newspapers circulating in that locality (one which at least
should be in the regional language) in a technical or literal
0 sense, but it is found that those newspapers have only
a circulation share of 2% to 3% of the total number of
newspaper sold in the locality, it may not be possible to
mechanically invalidate the entire acquisition, on the
ground that the two regional newspapers in which the
E Notification was published were not "circulating in that
locality". As the said two findings are slightly
contradictory, it is necessary to harmonize the
consequences. [Paras 17, 18 and 19] [509-B-H; 510-A-C-
D]
F 1.4 The consequences of publication of the
Notification in two newspapers having reasonably wide
circulation and consequences of bonafide publication of
the Notification in two newspapers which do not have a
wide circulation in the locality are:
G
(a) If there is failure to publish in two daily
newspapers or if the publication is in two
newspapers that have no circulation at all in the
locality, without anything more, the Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential
H
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION 495
C.M.D.A. v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM
acquisition proceedings would vitiate, on the ground A
of non-compliance with an essential condition of
Section 4(1) of the Act.
(b) If the two newspapers carrying the publication of
the Notification have reasonably wide circulation in
8
the locality, (apart from the publication of the
Notification in the Gazette and causing public notice
of the substance of the Notification to be given at
convenient places in the locality), then the
requirements of Section 4(1) are complied with and C
all persons concerned in the locality would be
deemed to have notice of the Notification. For this
purpose, the publication need not be in newspapers
having the widest or largest circulation, but it is
sufficient if the publication is in newspapers having
reasonably wide circulation. In that event, neither the D
Notification under Section 4(1 ), nor the consequential
acquisition proceedings would be open to challenge,
on the ground of violation of Section 4 of the Act.
(c) If the newspapers in which the Notification is E
published were circulated in the locality, but did not
have a reasonably wide circulation in the locality,
then neither the Notification under Section 4(1) nor
the consequential acquisition proceedings would
become vitiated automatically. If the person F
aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two
newspapers did not have reasonably wide circulation
in the locality, also asserts that as a consequence,
he did not have notice of the proposed acquisition
that was provided for in Section 4(1) of the Act, in the G
absence of evidence to the contrary, the acquisition
to the extent of the land of such person would be
vitiated. But if such assertion is rebutted by the
acquiring authority by placing evidence to show that
the person concerned had in fact notice, the
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A acquisition would be vitiated on the ground of
violation of Section 4A of the Act.
(d) If the person challenging the acquisition is able
to establish that the Notifications were deliberately
B and with malafides, published in newspapers having
negligible circulation, to avoid notice to the persons
concerned, then Section 4(1) would be violated.
[Para 20] [510-D-H; 511-A-G]
1.5 The acquiring authority need not prove actual
C notice of the proposal to acquire under Section 4(1) of the
Act, to the person challenging the acquisition. As the
purpose of publication of public notice provided in
Section 4(1) of the Act is to give notice of the proposal
of acquisition to the persons concerned, such notice can
D also be by way of implied notice or constructive notice.
When notice is directly served upon a party in a formal
manner or when it is received personally by him, there is
actual notice. If from the facts it can be inferred that a
party knew about the subject matter of the notice,
E knowledge is imputed by implied notice. Notice arising
· by presumption of law from the existence of certain
specified facts and circumstances is constructive or
deemed notice. [Para 21] [511-G-H; 512-A-E]
2.1 The copy of the communication sent by the
F Director of Information and Tourism (Advertisement)
Department in Tamil Nadu shows that between 1998 to
2000 "Madurai Mam" had a circulation of 6200, 4675, 5200
and 3100 in Central Madras, South Madras, North Madras
and Tambaram areas and "Kadiravan" had a circulation
G of 42,000 to 48,000 in Chennai area. On the other hand,
the material produced by the respondents show that the
total circulation of regional newspapers in Chennai was
around a million, that several regional newspapers had
circulations varying between 80,000 to 2,00,000 in
H Chennai, and the Madurai Mani with a Chennai
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION 497
C.M.D.A. v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM
circulation of 28465, had a market share of 3% out of the A
total circulation of regional newspapers. 'Kadiravan' also
apparently had a market share of 4% before its closure.
Therefore, the two newspapers were not having
circulation in the locality. However, having regard to the
circulation figures, the finding of the High Court that the B
newspapers did not have a reasonably wide circulation
in the locality is concurred with. [Para 22] [512-H; 513-A-
D]
2.2 As both Madurai Mani and Kadiravan were sold C
and circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of their
total circulations was in Chennai, it may not be possible
to hold that the said newspapers were not 'regional daily
newspapers circulating in the locality'. Nor will it be
possible to invalidate the entire acquisition on the ground
that the publication in the said two newspapers did not D
fulfill requirement of publication in 'newspapers
circulating in that locality'. But if the respondents are able
to assert and demonstrate that as a consequence, they
were denied the opportunity of participating in the
enquiry under Section 5A, or show any other E
disadvantage, they may be able to achieve the object of
showing that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated in
so far as their lands were concerned. [Para 23] [513-B-F]
2.3 Respondents 1 to 11 have challenged the F
acquisition. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 specifically admitted
that they received a notice from the appellant calling upon
them to appear before him in the Section 5A enquiry
under the Land Acquisition Act. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11
further admitted that they enquired and found that the G
lands were notified and immediately thereafter, filed their
objections to the acquisition proposals. Therefore, the
publication of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Act, in two newspapers which did not have wide
circulation in the locality, did not affect respondent Nos. H
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 5 to 11 in any manner as they had notice of the proposals
for acquisition and participated in the enquiry under
Section 5A of the Act. [Para 24] [513-G-H; 514-A-B]
2.4 There is nothing to show that respondent Nos. 1
8 to 4 had any subsisting interest in the two lands, when
the preliminary Notification was issued. When their father
died they did not choose to get their names entered in
the revenue records. The death of their father was in 1978
and the preliminary Notification was issued in the year
1998 and for two decades they took no steps to get the
C lands mutated in their names. It is stated in the writ
petition that they had let out the entire property to
eleventh respondent and had sold portions of the
property to respondent Nos. 5 to 10. But they have not
disclosed the extents of the portions that were sold and I
D which portions, if at all any, were retained by them. They
admit that the purchasers from them (respondent Nos. 5
to 10) and their tenant (respondent No. 11) had notice.
Therefore, as regards respondent Nos. 1 to 4 whether the
Notification was published in newspapers having wide
E circulation or not would make no difference and they
cannot complain about the absence of publication or
about defective publication of Notification under Section
4(1) in the newspapers. [Para 25] [514-C-F]
F 2.5 There were no averment in the writ petition that
respondents were not aware of the proposed acquisition.
It is evident that they were aware of the Notification. It is
also inconceivable that respondent Nos. 5 to 11 who
knew about the proposed acquisition would not have
G informed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 about the proposed
acquisition. Therefore, even if the publication in two
regional language newspapers is considered to be not
in compliance with the requirements of Section 4(1), it
cannot affect the validity of the preliminary Notification or
the consequential proceedings. [Para 26] [514-G-H; 515-
H A-8]
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION 499
C.M.D.A. v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM
2.6 The acquisition was for an urgent public purpose A
that is for implementation of further stages of the
Wholesale Market Complex. The objections on behalf of
the holders of the land had been considered. No prejudice
has been caused on account of the publication of the
Notification in two newspapers having limited circulation B
in the locality. To avoid such unnecessary controversies
and litigation, acquiring authorities should ensure that the
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published in
the newspapers having reasonable wide circulation.
[Paras 27 and 28] [515-8-D] - c
· 3. The acquisition is upheld. The impugned judgment
of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order
of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside. The writ
petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. The
observations regarding absence of proof of title of D
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 being in the context of the validity
of acquisition, would not come in the way of their
establishing any claim for their share of compensation, if
any, in the acquired lands in accordance with law. [Para
29] [515-E-F] E
Case Law Reference:
1992 (2) sec 168 Referred to Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. F
9760 of 2010.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.2.2005 of the High
Court Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 3043 of 2003.
Mohan Parasaran, ASG, T. Harish Kumar, P. Prasanth, V. G
Vasudevan for the Appellant.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, V.P. Sengottuvel, Malini Poduval,
Babita Sant, S. Thanajayan, T.R.B. Sivakumar, K.V.
Vijayakumar, R. Nedumaran, Vimal Dubey for the Respondents. H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. An area of 4.89 acres of land (which includes 54 cents
in Survey No. 186/1 and 1.09 acres of land in Survey No. 186/
B 2, in all 1.63 acres, which is the subject matter of this appeal)
in Koyambedu Village, Chennai District was notified for
acquisition for further implementation of Koyambedu Wholesale
Market Complex, under preliminary notification dated
13.11.1998 issued under section 4(1) and final declaration
C dated 2.2.2000 issued under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 ('Act' for short). The preliminary notification was published
in the T.N. Gazette dated 15.12.1998. It was also published in
two daily Tamil newspapers - "Maduari Mani" and "Kadiravan"
on 6.1.1999.
D
3. The said lands (Sy. No.186/1 · and 186/2) belonged to
one V.T. Jayaraman and he was shown as the registered owner/
pattadar of the said lands in the revenue records. He is stated
to have died on 3.11.1978 leaving two sons and two daughters
E (respondents 1 to 4 herein) as his legal heirs. On the death of
V.T. Jayaraman, the said lands bearing Sy. No.186/1 and 186/
2 were not mutated in the names of his legal heirs but continued
to be in the name of the deceased. V.T. Jayaraman in the
revenue records. Respondents 1 to 4 leased the said lands in
favour of the eleventh respondent (a trust for running an
F educational institution) on 25.10.1987. Respondents 1to4 also
sold portions of the said lands to respondents 5 to 10 who in
turn, also granted a lease of their portions in favour of eleventh
respondent. Thus respondents 1 to 4 were not shown as the
owners/occupiers of the said lands in the revenue/municipal
G records, nor were they in physical possession of the said lands.
It is stated that the eleventh respondent was in exclusive
possession of the said lands at the time of issue of preliminary
and final notifications and even thereafter.
H
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 501
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [RV. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
4. The respondents 1 to 11 challenged the acquisition of A
Sy. No.186/1 and 186/2 under preliminary notification dated
13.11.1998 and final notification dated 2.2.2000 in a Writ
Petition (W.P.No.7789/2000) filed on 21.4.2000, contending
that the acquisition was invalid for the following reasons: (a) The
preliminary notification and(final notifications were issued B
showing the name of a dead·person (V.T. Jayaraman) as the
owner of the said lands. Respondents 1 to 4 who were the
owners of the lands, were not issued any notice in regard to
enquiry under section 5A of the Act thereby denying them
opportunity to file objections and participate in the enquiry under c
section 5A of the Act. (b) The preliminary notification was
published in two Tamil Dailies "Madurai Mam" and "Kadiravan"
which had no circulation in the locality, thereby violating the
provisions of section 4( 1) of the Act. ( c) The eleventh
respondent was serving the residents of Koyembedu and D
surrounding villages by using the lands for running a school and
college and therefore the said lands should be excluded from
acquisition. In the said writ petition, the writ petitioners
(respondents 1 to 11) admitted that the eleventh respondent as-
also respondents 5 to 10 had received a notice dated 9.6.1999
E
from the appellant calling upon them to appear in the enquiry
under Section 5A of the Act; and that respondents 5 to 11 on
learning that the lands were notified under section 4(1) of the
Act, had filed their objections dated 9.7.1999 against the
acquisition proposal on the.ground that a sch'.fl was running . F
in the said lands and that the lands were far away from the
existing market complex.
5. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by
order dated 10.4.2003 allowed the writ petition holding that
publication of the notification under section 4( 1) of the Act in G
the newspapers "Kadiravan" and "Madurai Mam" which had
no circulation in the locality, did not fulfill the mandatory statutory
requirement under Section 4(1) of the Act. Consequently, he
quashed the preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) and
the subsequent final declaration under Section 6 of the Act. H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R
A 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant and the State filed a
writ appeal contending inter alia that it was not sufficient for the
writ petitioner a to allege that the newspapers had no circulation
in the locality, but they ought to have substantiated the said
claim, by production of relevant documents. It was further
B contended that section 4(1) of the Act did not require that the
newspapers wherein the publication is made should have a
wide circulation or be read by every person in the locality; and
that it was sufficient if the newspapers were sold in the locality,
that is, they had some circulation in the locality, and that one of
c them at least was in the regional language. The State
Government and the appellant did not however choose to file
before the High Court any document to show that the two
newspapers had any significant circulation. The writ appeal was
dismissed by an appellate bench of the High Court by the
impugned order dated 22.2.2005, holding that no material had
0
been placed by the State Government or the appellant to
establish that the two newspapers in which the notification was
published had a reasonably wide circulation in Chennai. The
appellate bench of the High Court rejected the contention that
even if the regional language newspapers in which preliminary
E notification was published had some circulation in the locality,
it would meet the requirements of section 4(1) of the Act and
held that the purpose of requiring circulation in the locality is to
enable the concerned landowners to know about the said
notification under section 4(1) of the Act and file their objections
F under section 5A of the Act or take other legal steps as they
deem fit, or prepare to permit survey and marking by the
officials; and therefore the newspapers in which the notification
under section 4(1) of the Act is published must be newspapers
having reasonably wide circulation in the locality. The appellate
G bench observed that there were many fake newspapers which
had little or no circulation which existed only for securing such
advertisements, and publication in such newspapers will not
amount to compliance with the mandatory requirements relating
to publication 'in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality'
H under section 4(1) of the Act even if the said newspapers were
SPECIAL DY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 503
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
registered newspapers having some nominal circulation. The A
Appellate Bench of the High Court held that the appellants had
failed to establish that "Kadiravan" and "Madurai Mam" had
sufficient circulation in the City of Chennai, where the acquired
lands were situated and therefore the publication of the
preliminary notification in the said newspapers did not comply B
with the mandatory requirements of notification under section
4(1) of the Act. The said order is challenged in this appeal by
special leave.
Appellant's contentions
c
7. The appellant contended that V.T. Jayaraman was
shown as the registered owner of the land in the revenue
records and respondents 1 to 4 had not got their names entered
as owners/holders of the said land on his death; and that
therefore they were not entitled to notice and the question of o
showing their names in the notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act did not arise. It was submitted that the purpose of a
preliminary notification was to notify the owners/holders/
occupants/persons interested in the proposed acquisition; that
the eleventh respondent who was admittedly in possession of E
the said lands and respondents 5 to 10 who were the owners
of portions of the said lands were aware of the said acquisition
notifications and had participated in the enquiry under Section
5A of the Act by filing their objections; and therefore
respondents 5 to 11 also could not challenge the acquisition
F
on the ground that they were prejudiced for want of notice. The
appellant submits that in view of the above, the question
whether the two newspapers in which the notification was
published had wide circulation or not, is a non-issue.
8. The appellant produced before this Court, for the first G
time, a letter dated 31.3.2004 addressed by the Director of
Information & Public Relations to the Special Government
Pleader, Madras, informing that "Madurai Mani" had a
circulation of 28475 in various parts of Madras area during
1998 to 2000 (that is an average circulation of 6200, 4657 and H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 5200 for Central Madras, South Madras and North Madras and
3100, 3450, 3550 and 2300 for Tambaram, Chengalpattu,
Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur); and that "Kadhiravan" had a
circulation of 42,000 to 48,000 copies per day in and around
Madras City but it had stopped publication on 14.11.2001. It
8 was submitted that these published figures are in public domain
and therefore the said information, though not produced before
the High Court, should be permitted to be placed on record in
the interest of justice.
9. The appellant submitted that the publication of the
C notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette
and publication of a public notice of the substance of the said
notification at convenient places in the said locality was not
disputed; and that the challenge by the respondents is only on
the ground that the third requirement of the section, that the
D notification shall be published in "two daily newspapers
circulating in that locality" was not complied with. It is pointed
out that the section does not say that the newspapers should
have a substantial circulation nor uses the prefix 'widely' before
the word 'circulating'; and in the absence of any definition of
E the word 'circulating' or prescription of any minimum figures
relating to circulation, a newspaper which was regularly sold or
was available for purchase in a locality, should be deemed to
be a newspaper circulating in that locality. It is contended that
the fact that the two newspapers in which the notification was
F published, had some 'circulation' in the locality was not denied
by respondents and the contention of the respondents that the
newspapers in question did not have 'wide' or 'sufficient'
circulation, was not a requirement specified in the section.
Respondents' contentions
G
10. The respondents contended that the failure to show the
names of respondents 1 to 4 who were the owners of the land
and showing the name of their deceased father V.T. Jayaraman
as the owner in the preliminary notification vitiated the
H acquisition proceedings relating to Sy.No.186/1 and .186/2.
I
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 505
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
11. Respondents submitted that they had made a specific A
averment in their writ petition in regard to the lack of circulation
of the two newspapers as follows: "The Notification was alleged
to have been published in "Kadiravan" and "Madurai Mani"
newspapers, which were not at all having any circulation in the
area". It is pointed out that the appellant (Chennai Metropolitan B
Development Authority) which was the second respondent in
·· the writ petition, did not file any counter before the High Court;
and only the State Government filed a counter before the High
Court where the said averment was not traversed or denied. It
was therefore contended that the appellant is deemed to have c
admitted the said allegation in the writ petition that the two
newspapers in which the preliminary notification was published,
did not have any circulation in the locality.
12. The respondents have also produced the circulation
figures regarding various Tamil newspapers, published by the D
Information and Tourism department, to show the circulations
of the two newspapers in the correct perspective. The figures
are Dinabhoomi:72676; Dinakaran:1,23,000;
Dinamalar:85,980; Dinamani:90,000; Daily Thanthi:2, 10,204;
Madurai Mani:28, 465 Makkal Kural:63,000; Malai E
Malar:65,205; and Malai Murasu:60,000. The said document
gives the circulation figures of some other tamil newspapers
having smaller circulations and confirmed that 'Kadiravan' was
closed in November, 2001. On these comparative figures, it
was contended by respondents that it could not be said that F
the two Tamil language newspapers 'Madurai Mani' and
'Kadiravan' had 'wide' circulation in Chennai and therefore the
said newspapers· cannot be described as daily newspapers
"circulating" in that locality.
G
Questions for consideration.
13. ·on the contentions raised, two questions arise for our
consideration:
(i) Whether the finding of the High Court that the two H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A regional language newspapers in which the
Notification under section 4(1) was published did
not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality
and therefore there is non-compliance with the
provisions of section 4(1 ), calls for interference?
B
(ii) Whether the acquisition is invalid?
Re: Question (i) : Publication in newspapers circulating ...
in the locality
c 14. Sub-section 4(1) of the Act relates to publication of
preliminary notification and relevant portion thereof is extracted
below:
"4. Publication of preliminary notification and powers
of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever it appears to the
D
appropriate Government that land in any locality is needed
or Is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a
company a notification to that effect shall be published in
the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional
E language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the
substance of such notification to be given at convenient
places in the said locality ..... "
Section 4(1) of the Act requires publication of the preliminary
F notification by three modes : (i) publication in the official
gazette; (ii) publication in two daily newspapers circulating in
the locality, at least one of which being in the regional language;
and (iii) causing public notice of the substance of such
preliminary notification to be given at convenient places in the
G locality.
15. The controversy in this case relates to the second
mode, that is publication in "two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality". The provision does not use the words "two daily
newspapers having a wide circulation in the locality". In the
H absence of any definition or explanation in the Statute, the
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 507 - ·-
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
question is as to how should the words 'circulating in that A
locality' be understood? Do they refer to newspapers having .
the widest circulation in the locality? Or do they refer to
newspapers which are regularly sold or circulated in the locality,
irrespective of numbers, even if their circulation figures are very
modest? If there are nine newspapers circulating in the locality, B
having a market share of 25%, 20%, 15%, 12%, 10%, 8%, 5%,
3% and 2% of the total daily sales of regional newspapers in
the locality, whether all of them can be termed as 'newspapers
circulating in the locality' or whether only newspapers with a
particular minimum percentage can be described as c
''newspapers circulating in the locality'. Can it be said that the
newspapers having 5%, 3% and 2% of total sales of
newspapers, are not newspapers circulating in the locality? Can
it be said that only the newspapers having the maximum market
share of 25% or 20% or 15% of the total sales in the locality,
0
could be described as newspapers circulating in the locality?
Whether the total circulation figures of the newspaper are
relevant or whether the circulation figures in the locality alone
are relevant? From a newspaper's point of view, if its total
circulation is 40,000 and out of it circulation figure for Chennai
is 21,000, it can very well say that it's major circulation is in E
Chennai. But from the reader's point of view, if the total number
of regional newspapers sold in Chennai is a million, a
newspaper having a circulation of 21,000 (which is around 2%)
may not be considered to be a newspaper with a wide
circulation in the locality. Which perspective should be F
preferred? If section 4(1) is to be interpreted as requiring
publication in two newspapers having reasonably wide
circulation, as held by the High Court, what should be the
guidelines to determine 'reasonably wide circulation'? Where
should the line be drawn and whether any line should be drawn G
are questions that may arise, if we read the words 'newspapers
circulating in that locality' as 'newspapers having wide
circulation in that locality'.
16. The purpose of publication of the notification is two fold: H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C R
A First is to ensure that adequate publicity is given so that land
owners and persons interested will have an opportunity to file
their objections under Section SA of the Act. Second is to put
the land owners/occupants on notice that government officers
will be entering upon the property for carrying on the activities
s enumerated in section 4(2) of the Act. Section 4(1 ), before its
amendment in 1984, required publication of the preliminary
notification only in the official gazette and public notice, of the
substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality.
This Court, in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd
c Shafi & Ors. 1992 (2) SCC 168 explained the object of issuing
a notification under Section 4 of the Act thus:
"The object of issuing a notification under Section 4 of the
Act is two-fold. First, it is a public announcement by the
Government and a public notice by the Collector to the
·D effect that the land, as specified therein, is needed or is
likely to he needed by the Government for the "public
purpose" mentioned therein; and secondly, it authorizes the
departmental officers or officers of the local authority, as
the case may be to do all such acts as are mentioned in
E Section 4(2) of the Act. The notification has to be published
in the locality and particularly persons likely to be affected
by the proposal have to be put on notice that such an
activity is afoot. The notification is, thus, required to give
with sufficient clarity not only the "public purpose" for which
F the acquisition proceedings are being commenced but
also the "locality" where the land is situate with as full a
description as possible of the land proposed to be
acquired to enable the "interested" persons to know as to
which land is being acquired and for what purpose and to
G take further steps under the Act by filing objections etc.,
since it is open to such persons to canvass the non-
suitability of the land for the alleged "public purpose" also.
If a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is defective
and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, it
not only vitiates the notification, but also renders all
H
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 509
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
subsequent proceedings connected with the acquisition, A
bad."
17. By Amendment Act 68 of 1984, section 4(1) was
amended introducing the additional requirement relating to
publication of the notification in two daily newspapers circulating 8
in the locality. The purpose of requiring such newspaper
publication is to give as wide a publicity to the notification as
possible, as the State Gazettes do not have a wide circulation
and causing public notice of the substance of the notification
at convenient places in the locality would give notice only in C
specific pockets in the locality. Legislature therefore provided
for publication in two newspapers (of which at least one being
in the regional language) to have a wider reach. Having regard
to the object and purpose of the provision, it is evident that
publication should be in newspapers which have a reasonably
good circulation in the locality. If the publication is to be made D
- in obscure newspapers having only token or insignificant
circulation, either to cut the cost of publication or by way of
political or official patronage, that will defeat the very purpose
of providing for publication in newspapers.
E
18. On the other hand, if the words 'newspapers circulating
in that ·locality' are to be interpreted in a purely literal and
normal sense, they would mean newspapers having a regular
and steady circulation among the general public in the locality,
irrespective of the number. In that sense even a newspaper F
having 2% to 3% market share out of the total circulation figures
for regional newspapers sold in the locality, can be considered
as a newspaper "circulating in the locality". Therefore, where
there is compliance with the requirement relating to publication
in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality (one which G
at least should be in the regional language) in a technical or
literal sense, but it is found that those newspapers have only a
circulation share of 2% to 3% of the total number of newspaper
sold in the locality, it may not be possible to mechanically
invalidate the entire acquisition, on the ground that the two
H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C R
A regional newspapers in which the notification was published
were not "circulating in that locality".
19. We have held that the object and purpose of the
amended section 4(1) of the Act is to provide for publication
of the preliminary notification in two daily newspapers having "C
8
reasonably wide circulation in the locality so that people
(persons interested) in that locality may become aware of the
proposals for acquisition. We have also held that publications
in two newspapers having regular and steady circulation, but
having a market share of only 2% to 3% of the total newspapers
C can not invalidate the acquisition proceedings automatically, on
the ground that such publication violates the requirement of
section 4(1) relating to newspaper publication. As the said two
findings are slightly contradictory, it is necessary to harmonize
the consequences.
D
20. This leads us next to the consequences of publication
of the notification in two newspapers having reasonably wide
circulation and consequences of bonafide publication of the
notification in two newspapers which do not have a wide
E circulation in the locality.
20.1) If there is failure to publish in two daily newspapers
or if the publication is in two newspapers that have no
circulation at all in the locality, without anything more, the
notification under section 4(1) of the Act and the consequential
F acquisition proceedings will be vitiated, on the ground of non-
compliance with an essential condition of section 4(1) of the
Act.
20.2) If the two newspapers carrying the publication of the
G notification have reasonably wide circulation in the locality,
(apart from the publication of the notification in the Gazette and
causing public notice of the substance of the notification to be
given at convenient places in the locality), then the requirements
of section 4(1) are complied with and all persons concerned
H in the locality shall be deemed to have notice of the notification.
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 511
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
(For this purpose, the publication need not be in newspapers A
having the widest or largest circulation, but it is sufficient if the
publication is in newspapers having reasonably wide
circulation). In that event, neither the notification under section
4(1 ), nor the consequential acquisition proceedings would be
open to challenge, on the ground of violation of Section 4 of B
the Act.
20.3) If the newspapers in which the notification is
published were circulating in the locality, but did not have a
reasonably wide circulation in the locality, then neither the
notification under section 4(1) nor the consequential acquisition C
proceedings, will become vitiated automatically. If the person
aggrieved, apart from demonstrating that the two newspapers
did not have reasonably wide circulation in the locality, also
asserts that as a consequence, he did not have notice of the
proposed acquisition that was provided for in Section 4(1) of D ·.
the Act, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
acquisition to the extent of the land of such person will be
vitiated. But if such assertion is rebutted by the acquiring
authority by placing evidence to show that the person
concerned had in fact notice (as for example where he E
participated in the enquiry under section 5A of the Act), the
acquisition will not be vitiated on the ground "of violation of
section 4A of the Act.
20.4) If the person challenging the acquisition is able to F
establish that the notifications were deliberately and with
malafides, published in newspapers having negligible
circulation, to avoid notice to the persons concerned, then
section 4(1) will be violated.
21. The acquiring authority need not prove actual notice G
of the proposal to acquire under section 4(1) of the Act, to the
person challenging the acquisition. As the purpose of
publication of public notice provided in section 4(1) of the Act
is to give notice of the proposal of acquisition to the persons
concerned, such notice can also be by way of implied notice H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL) S.C.R
A or constructive notice. For this purpose, we may refer to the
difference between actual, implied and constructive notices.
21.1) When notice is directly served upon a party in a
formal manner or when it is received personally by him, there
is actual notice.
8
21.2) If from the facts it can be inferred that a party knew
about the subject matter of the notice, knowledge is imputed
by implied notice. For example, if the purpose of the notice is
to require a party to appear before an authority on a particular
C date, even though such a notice is not personally served on him,
if the person appears before the authority on that date or
participates in the subsequent proceedings, then the person
can be said to have implied notice.
0 21.3) Notice arising by presumption of law from the
existence of certain specified facts and circumstances is
constructive or deemed notice. For example, any person
purchasing or obtaining a transfer of an immovable property is
deemed to have notice of all transactions relating to such
E property effected by registered instruments till the date of his
acquisition. Or, where the statute provides for publication of the
notification relating to a proposed acquisition of lands in the
Gazette and newspapers and by causing public notice of the
substance of the notification at convenient places in the locality,
but does not provide for actual direct notice, then such provision
F provides for constructive notice; and on fulfillment of those
requirements, all persons interested in the lands proposed for
acquisition are deemed to have notice of the proposal
regarding acquisition.
G Re : Question (ii) : Validity of the acquisition
22. The copy of the communication dated 31.3.2004 sent
by the Director of Information and Tourism (Advertisement)
Department in Tamil Nadu shows that between 1998 to 2000
H "Madurai Mani" had a circulation of 6200, 4675, 5200 and
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 513
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]
3100 in Central Madras, South Madras, North Madras and A
Tambaram areas and "Kadiravan" had a circulation of 42,000
to 48,000 in Cbennai area. On the other hand the material
produced by the respondents show that the total circulation of
regional newspapers in Chennai was around a million, that
several regional newspapers had circulations varying between B
80,000 to 2,00,000 in Chennai, and the Madurai Mani with a
Chennai circulation of 28465, had a market share of 3% out of
the total circulation of regional newspapers. 'Kadiravan' also
apparently had a market share of 4% before its closure. The
two newspapers were not therefore newspapers having no c
circulation in the locality. We however agree, having regard to
the circulation figures, with the finding of the High Court that the
newspapers did not have a reasonably wide circulation in the
locality.
23. As both Madurai Mani and Kadiravan were sold and D
circulated in Chennai and as a good chunk of their total
circulations was in Chennai, it may not be possible to hold that
the said newspapers were not 'regional daily newspapers
circulating in the locality'. Nor will it be possible to invalidate
the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the E
said two newspapers did not fulfill requirement of publication
in 'newspapers circulating in that locality'. But if the respondents
are able to assert and demonstrate that as a consequence, they
were denied the opportunity of participating in the enquiry under
Section 5A, or show any other disadvantage, they may be able F
to achieve the object of showing that the acquisition
proceedings were vitiated in so far as their lands were
concerned.
24. In this case respondents 1 to 11 have challenged the G
acquisition. Respondents 5 to 11 specifically admitted that they
received a notice dated 9.6.1999 from the appellant herein
calling upon them to appear before him in the Section SA
enquiry under the Land Acquisition Act. Respondents 5 to
11 further admitted that they enquired and found that the lands H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A were notified and immediately thereafter filed their objections
to the acquisition proposals. Therefore, the publication of the
notification under section 4(1) of the Act, in two newspapers
which did not have wide circulation in the locality, did not affect
respondents 5 to 11 in any manner as they had notice of the
B proposals for acquisition and participated in the enquiry under
section SA of the Act.
25. We may now deal with the grievance of respondents
1 to 4. There is nothing to show that they had any subsisting
C interest in the two lands, when the preliminary notification was
issued. When their father died they did not choose to get their
names entered in the revenue records. The death of their father
was in 1978 and the preliminary notification was issued in the
year 1998 and for two decades they took no steps to get the
lands mutated in their names. It is stated in the writ petition that
D they had let out the entire property to eleventh respondent and
had sold portions of the property to respondents 5 to 10.
But they have not disclosed the extents of the portions that were
sold and which portions, if at all any, were retained by them.
They admit that the purchasers from them (respondents 5 to
E 10) and their tenant (respondent No. 11) had notice.
Therefore, in so far as respondents 1 to 4 are concerned,
whether the notification was published in newspapers having
wide circulation or not would make no difference and they
cannot complain about the absence of publication or about
F defective publication of notification under Section 4(1) in the
newspapers. Even if the publication had been in two
newspapers having wider circulation, their names would not
have figured therein.
G 2EI. It is significant to note that there is no averment in the
writ petition that respondents were not aware of the proposed
acquisition. It is evident that they were aware of the notification.
It is also inconceivable that respondents 5 to 11 who knew about
the proposed acquisition would not have informed respondents
H 1 to 4 about the proposed acquisition. Be that as it may.
SPECIAL DY. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION C.M.D.A. 515
v. J. SIVAPRAKASAM [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
Therefore even if the publication in two regional language A
newspapers is considered to be not in compliance with the
requirements of section 4(1 ), it cannot affect the validity of the
preliminary notification or the consequential proceedings in
regard to Sy. Nos.186/1 and 186/2.
B
27. No other ground is urged to interfere with the
acquisition. The acquisition was for an urgent public purpose
that is for implementation of further stages of Koyambedu
.Wholesale Market Complex. The objections on behalf of the
holders of the land had been considered. No prejudice has
been caused on account of the publication of the notification C
in two newspapers having limited circulation in the locality.
Conclusion
28. To avoid such unnecessary controversies and litigation, D
acquiring authorities should ensure that the notification under
section 4(1) of the Act is published in the newspapers having
reasonable wide circulation.
29. In view of the above, we are of the view that the
acquisition has to be upheld. Accordingly we allow this appeal, E ·
set aside the impugned judgment of the division bench of the
High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. We
uphold the acquisition and dismiss the writ petition filed by the
respondents. Our observations in para 25 above regarding
'"'-absence of proof of title of respondents 1 to 4. being in the F
context of the validity of acquisition, will not come in the way of
their establishing any claim for their share of compensation, if
any, in the acquired lands in accordance with law.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
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