Appeal No 297 of 1976
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 16 10 74 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 16972
ST Desai MK Garg KB Rohtagi VK Jain and MM Kashyap for the Appellant
OP Rana for Respondents 1 4
VM Tarkunde Pramod Swarup and RS Verma for Respond ent No 5
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court reversing on appeal the decision of learned single Judge whereby notification dated April 23 1966 issued by the State Government under section 71 of the UP Land Acqui sition Rehabilitation of Refugees Act 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act had been quashed
As a result of the decision of the Division Bench the writ petition filed by the appellants to quash that notification stood dis missed
The Sufferers  Co operative Housing Society Jaunpur respondent applied to the Uttar Pradesh Government in 1955 for acquiring four acres of land for the purpose of erecting houses shops and workshops for the rehabilitation of the refugees who were members of that society
At the instance of the State Government the society deposited a sum of Rs15000 towards the cost of the land to be acquired
In 1964 the society entered into an agreement with the State Government under section 6 of the Act
The State Government thereafter published on April 23 1966 the impugned notifi cation and the same reads as under Under sub section 1  of section 7 of the UP Land Acquisition Rehabilitation of Refugees Act No XXVI of 1948 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to declare that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the Schedule is needed and is suitable for the erection of houses shops and 228 workshops for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith
All the persons interested in the land in question are therefore required to appear personally or by duly autho rised agent before the Compensation Officer of the Distt
at Jaunpur on the twenty seventh day of April 1966 with neces sary documentary or other evidence for the determination of the amount of compensation under section 11 of the Act
The Collector of Jaunpur is directed to take possession of the aforesaid land fourteen days after the publication of this notice in the official gazette
Upon the publication of this notice the aforesaid land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encum brances from
the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published
SCHEDULE Distt
Pargana Mauza Municipality PlotNo
Area Cantonment Town area or Notified area 154 Mohalla Diwan Shah Kabir alias 1521 100 Tartala Pargana Haveli Tahsil 1522 Jaunpur Municipal Area 149 Jaunpur 153 2 shops No 6 and 7 For what purpose required for the rehabilitation of displaced persons
Note A copy of the site plan may be inspected at the office of the Collector Jaunpur
 Subsequent to that notification the Land Acquisition Offi cer determined the amount of compensation for the land and shops to be acquired at a little over rupees forty one thousand
The balance of the amount to be paid as compensa tion was thereafter deposited by the society
On April 10 1970 the appellants claiming to be the owners of a part of the land sought to be acquired fried petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Allahabad High Court with a prayer for quashing the impugned notification
The notification was assailed on the following three grounds 1 The notification did not properly specify the lands sought to be acquired 2 The notification was ultra vires the Act inasmuch as it sought to acquire lands for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons and not for the rehabilitation of refugees and 3 The notification was not in accordance with the provisions of section 71 of the Act
229 The learned single Judge while allowing the writ peti tion did not go into the first ground
He however accepted the second and third grounds and in the result quashed the notification
On the second ground the learned Judge referred to the definition in section 27 of the Act according to which refugee means any person who was a resident in any place forming part of Pakistan and who on account of partition of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbance has on or after the first day of March 1947 migrated to any place in the UP and has been since residing there
It was observed that there was nothing to show that the displaced persons for whose benefit the land in question was being acquired had settled in Uttar Pradesh
Regarding the third ground the learned Judge expressed the view that the notification under section 71 of the Act required that the State Government should indicate in the notification that it had decided to acquire the land
As the word decided was not mentioned in the notification the notification was held to be not in accordance with law
On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court disagreed with the learned single Judge on both the grounds on which he had quashed the notification
It was held that the notification was substantially in accordance with section 71 of the Act
It was further observed that the society for whose benefit the land was being acquired consisted of refugees
Dealing with the first ground namely that the notification was vague as it did not properly specify the land sought to be acquired the Division Bench held that all the necessary particulars in respect of the land sought to be acquired had been given
In the result the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed
In appeal before us Mr Desai has assailed the decision of the Division Bench on all the three grounds and has urged that the impugned notification is liable to be quashed on each of those grounds
We shall accordingly deal with those grounds
So far as the ground is concerned that the persons for whose rehabilitation the land is sought to be acquired are not refugees Mr Desai could not in spite of our query refer us to any paragraph in the writ petition wherein the above ground had been taken
All the same he submitted that as the question had been allowed to be agitated before the High Court we should not debar the appellants from advancing arguments on that score
The submission made by the learned counsel in this behalf is that there is nothing to show that the persons for whose benefit the land is being acquired arc settled in Uttar Pradesh
In this respect we are of the view that the question as to whether those per sons are settled in Uttar Pradesh or not is essentially one of fact
In the absence of any averment in the writ peti tion that the person concerned were not settled in Uttar Pradesh it is obvious that the material facts having bear ing on this point could not be brought on record
A party seeking to challenge the validity of a notification on a ground involving questions of fact should make necessary averments of fact before it can assail the notification on that ground
As such we find it difficult to sustain the contention of Mr Desai that the persons for whose benefit the land is being acquired were not settled in Uttar Pra desh
Apart from that we find that 230 ground No 13 taken in the writ petition proceeds upon the assumption that the persons for whose benefit the land was being acquired were in fact refugees
It further appears from the judgment of the Division Bench that there was hardly any dispute before the Division Bench on the point that the respondent society namely Sufferers  Co opera tive Housing Society consists of refugees and has refugees as its members
Coming to the second ground taken by the appellants that the notification was not in conformity with section 71 of the Act inasmuch
as it did not state that the State Gov ernment had decided to acquire the land in dispute we are of the opinion that a reading of the notification which has been reproduced above leaves no manner of doubt that the State Government had decided to acquire the land
It is stated in the notification that the Governor of Uttar Pra desh is pleased to declare that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule is needed and is suitable for the erection of houses shops and workshops for the rehabil itation of displaced persons andor for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith
The notification further proceeds to state that the land in question shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encum brances from the date of the notification
The recital in the earlier part of the notification as well as the opera tive part of the notification that the land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest in the State Government lend clear support for the conclusion that the State Government decided to acquire the land and the order of acquisition was merely an implementation of that decision
The fact that the word decided has not been used in the notification would not prove fatal when the entire tenor of the notification reveals the decision of the State Government to acquire the land and is consistent only with the hypothesis of such a decision having been arrived at
The courts should be averse to strike down a notification for acquisition of land on fanciful grounds based on hypertechnicality
What is needed is substantial compliance with law
The impugned notification in our opinion clearly satisfies that requirement
Lastly we may deal with the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the notification in question is vague
It is pointed out by Mr Desai that the total area of the land comprised in field numbers mentioned in the notification is 126 acres while the actual area which is sought to be acquired is one acre
The learned counsel accordingly urges that it is not possible to find out the particular portions of those fields which are sought to be acquired
As such the notification is stated to be vague and thus not in conformity with law
Our attention has also been invited by Mr Desaid to the report dated June 23 1971 of the Tehsildar who was deputed to deliver possession of the acquired land to the society
In the said report the Tehsildar stated that he found it difficult to find out as to which part of the fields mentioned in the notification were acquired
In this respect we find that the report of the Tehsilder itself indicates that when he went to the spot to deliver possession of the acquired 231 land he did not take with him the correct plan of the said land
The impugned notification makes an express reference to the site plan
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the society and that affidavit makes it plain that the area of the land which has been acquired comes to exactly one acre
There appears to be no cogent ground to interfere with the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the impugned notification has not been shown to be vague
We therefore find no infirmity in the impugned notification
The appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs
Before we conclude we would like to observe that the case before us tells a sad tale of delays in a matter which on sheer humanitarian grounds needed to be attended to with expedition
The case as would appear from the above pertains to the acquisition of land with a view to rehabili tate refugees who were uprooted from their hearths and homes in areas now in Pakistan because of disturbances and fear of disturbances which marred the partition of the country
The refugees for this purpose formed a society and applied to the administration in 1955 for acquisition of land so that they could erect shops and workshops on that land with a view to earn their livelihood
It took the administra tion 11 years thereafter to issue necessary notification for the acquisition of the land in dispute
Four years were thereafter spent because possession of the land could not be delivered
The only attempt made to deliver possession proved infructuous as the Tehsildar entrusted with this task took a wrong plan
From 1970 till today the delivery of possession remained stayed because of the writ proceedings initiated by the appellants
One can only hope that now that the final curtain has been dropped the matter would be attended to with the necessary promptitude
PHP Appeal dismissed


Summary:
UP Government issued a notification under Section 71 of the UP Land Acquisition Rehabilitation of Refugees Act 1948 for acquiring the land belonging to the appellant for the purpose of Sufferers Cooperative Housing Society
The Society entered into an agreement with the Government under section 6 of the Act
The Land Acquisition Officer determined the amount of compensation for the acquired land
The appellants challenged the validity of the said notifica tion on the following grounds 1
The notification did not properly speci fy the land sought to be acquired
The notification was ultra vires the Act because it sought to acquire land for the rehabilitation of displaced persons and not for the rehabilitation of refugees
The notification was not in accordance with the provisions of section 71 of the Act
The single Judge of the High Court did not go into the first ground but accepted the second and third grounds and quashed the notification
He held that according to the definition of refugees in section 27 a refugee is a person who has migrated from Pakistan to any place in the UP and has been since then residing in UP and that there was nothing to show that the displaced persons who are the members of the Society had settled in UP While accepting the third ground the learned Judge held that section 71 requires to indicate in the notification that it had decid ed to acquire the land
However the notification did not mention the expression decided
On an appeal the Division Bench disagreed with the conclusions of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal
The Division Bench held that the notification was substantially in accordance with the section 7 1  and that the members of the Society consisted of refugees
The Division Bench also held that the notification was not vague and it proper ly specified the land sought to be acquired
In an appeal by Special Leave the appellants repeated the 3 grounds
Dismissing the appeal HELD 1
The ground about the members of the Society not being refugees has not been taken in the Writ Petition at all
The question whether those members have settled in UP is essentially one of fact
In the absence of any averment in the writ petition the material facts having bearing on the point could not be brought on record
A party seeking to challenge the validity of a notifi cation on a ground involving questions of fact should make necessary averments of fact before it can assail the notification on that ground
229 F H 227 2
The recital in the earlier part of the notification as well as the operative part of the notification that the land shall be deemed to have been acquired permanently and shall vest in the State Government lends clear support to the conclusion that the State Government decided to acquire the land and the order of acquisition was merely an implementa tion of that decision
The fact that the word decided has not been used in the notification would not prove fatal when the entire tenor of the notification reveals the decision of the State Govt
to acquire land
The court would not strike down a notification for acquisition on hypertechnicality what is needed is sub stantial compliance with law and the impugned notification clearly satisfies that require ment
230 D F 3
The contention that the notification in question is vague is not substantiated
The notification makes an express reference to the site plan
230 G 231 A