ivil Appeal Nos4554 to 4556 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 18291 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition Nos
1707 1746 and 1797 of 1986
DD Thakur CSChazed VGambhir Surinder Kamail SKGambhir and NNBhatt for the Appellants
KK Venugopal PPRao GLSanghi KK Sharma Ashok K Mahajan LR Singh DMehta AVachher RNMittal and SKMehta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 249 RANGANATH MISRA CJ
Special leave granted
Ujjain Development Authority is in appeal challenging the judgment of the Madhya Predesh High Court Indore Bench rendered in an application under Article 226 of the Consti tution annulling the notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act  by holding that scheme No23 flamed under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 does not operate against certain specified lands of the respondents
It would appear that there was a similar notification under section 41 of the Act for acquisition of the self same properties along with some 600 hectares for the purpose of development of Ujjain a historical town of Kalidas fame within Madhya Pradesh
On 17980 for different reasons the notification had been quashed
In 1985 the impugned notifi cation was issued afresh under section 41 of the Act
The High Court found that the requirements of the stat ute for completing the scheme for the purpose of which the acquisition had been made had not been complied with and therefore no action for acquisition under the scheme could be taken
We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and must state that the reasoning given by the High Court is difficult to find fault with
There are however certain features which lead us not to sustain the decision of the High Court
Admittedly there has been a notification under section 502 of the Adhiniyam
Gazette Notification in respect of Scheme No 23 has also been produced
Though there is a finding that the pre conditions had not been complied with strictly under the statutory provisions the High Court has not found any mala fides
The Development Authority in question consisted of only one person
His own order was perhaps taken by him and the governmental authori ties as the requisite resolution
The respondents did not take the ground that there was no valid authority behind the scheme
In the earlier petition also such a ground had not been raised
The High Court called for the record and dis covered for itself that the statutory pre condition had not been complied with for the said scheme to operate
If this question had been raised when the earlier writ petition was filed about 12 years back the defect could have then been rectified
It is the admitted case before us that the undisputed huge patch of land has been substantially improved upon under the scheme
Cancellation of the notification does not bring the matter to an end
Obviously fresh proceedings would be taken after complying with the defect if the judg ment of the High Court is allowed to stand
If the acquisi tion is not made the respondents should enjoy usual benefits of their land on account of the 250 development of the neighbouring area and if the re acquisi tion is made there would be claim for higher compensation
Looking at the matter from these different angles we have thought it appropriate to allow the appeal vacate the judgment of the High Court and allow the acquisition to remain subject however to the condition that the notifica tion under section 41 of the Act issued in 1985 shall be deemed to be one dated 1188 and the market value of the land for the acquisition shall be determined with reference to that date
We would like to point out that the potential value of the land has substantially enhanced on account of the improvements made pursuant to the notification which had been assailed
We have directed the deemed date of the notification under section 41 to be postponed by almost three years and during this period the appellant has brought about the bulk of the improvements in the neighbourhood
We direct that 25 per cent of the potential value of the land relatable to the improvements made by the appellant would only be available to the respondents but in fixing market value all other legitimate considerations shall be taken into account
We make it clear that we have no intention to extend the benefit under section 28A of the Act to the owners of the lands already acquired under the notification of 1980 or 1985 on the basis of our direction that the respondents  lands shall be deemed to have been notified under section 41 of the Act on 11
In fact our order must be deemed to be a separate notification for acquisition and therefore it would not be a common notifi cation for the purpose of section 28 A of the Act
The respondents should therefore be entitled to this benefit that instead of the notification under section 41 of the Act being of 1985 it shall be treated to be of 111988
The appellate authority is now entitled to take position in accordance with law subject to the valuation of the compen sation in the manner indicated
There will be no order as to costs
VPR Appeals dis posed of


Summary:
Proceedings for acquisition of appellant s land were initiated
and a Notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published in the Government Ga zette
The substance of the said Notification was published in the locality long after 40 days within which it was required to be published under Section 41 of 1894 Act as amended by the Andhra pradeshAmendment Act 1983
During the course of enquiry regarding the fixation of compensa tion the appellant consented to his land being acquired provided he was given compensation in a lump sum
However before any award was made he withdrew his consent and filed a petition challenging the validity of the acquisition proceedings
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his petition by holding that since he gave his consent to the acquisition of land he could not challenge the acquisition proceedings
On appeal the decision of the Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court
Against the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court an appeal was filed in this Court
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD 1
The Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court were clearly in error in dismissing the respective writ petition and the appeal filed by the appel lant respectively
The appellant s statement that he was willing to accept the acquisition provided a lump sum com pensation was awarded to him amounted 115 116 in law to no more than an offer in terms of the Contract ACt
The said offer was never accepted by the Land Acquisi tion Officer to whom it was made
Leave alone making the award of lump sum compensation no award at all was made by the said officer awarding compensation to the appellant till the aforesaid offer was withdrawn by the appellant or even till the writ petition was filed
Till the offer was accept ed there was no contract between the parties and the appel lant was entitled to withdraw his offer
There was nothing inequitable or improper in withdrawing the offer as the appellant was in no way bound to keep the offer open indefi nitely
1117 G H 118 A 2
The acquisition of the appellant s land is bad in law because the substance of the Notification was not pub lished in the locality within forty days of the publication of the Notification in the Government Gazette
The time limit of forty days for such publication in the locality has been made mandatory by section 41 of the 1894 Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 1983
Such non compliance renders acquisition bad in law
118 C