Appeal No 1192 and 1193 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 13 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in LPA No 6 of 1969
699 B Sen and G D Gupta for the appellant
V C Mahajan and R N Sachthey for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GROVER J
These two appeals by certificate from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court must succeed on the short ground that the provisions of section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 were not complied with
In CA 119267 a notification was issued under section 4 of the Act on October 15 1960 for acquisition of the land in dispute
Under section 17 4 of the Act the provisions of section 5A were dispensed with
On October 28 1960 the notification under section 6 was issued
The appellant was directed to be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under section 9 on December 4 1960
On December 5 1960 the appellant filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acqui sition proceedings
The petition was dismissed by a single judge of the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench
Section 41 of the Act is in the following terms 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 notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality It is common ground that the Collector did not cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired was situated
In other words there was no compliance whatsoever with the second part of sub section
 1  of section 4
The law as settled by this Court is that
such a notice under second part of section 41 is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated
We may refer in this connection to Khub Chand  Others vs The State of Rajasthan  Ors
In that case this Court pointed out that the object is to give intimation to a person whose land is sought to be acquired of the intention of the officer to enter the land
Under section 42 such a notice is a necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry noncompliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful
In State of Mysore vs Abdul Razak Sahib2 no notices as required by section 41of the Act were published in the locality till after the lapse of about 10 weeks
The question for consideration  1  2 C A 2361 of 1968 dt
August 11
700 was whether the notification issued under section 4 was a valid one
This Court held that in the case of a notification under section 4 the law has prescribed that in addition to publication of a notice in the official gazette the Collector must also give publicity of the substance of the notification in the concerned locality
Unless both these conditions are satisfied section 4 of the Act cannot be said to have been complied with
The purpose behind such a notice was that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so
as to prefer any objections under section 5 A which confers a valuable right
Learned counsel for the State has however contended that according to these decisions it is only when the persons interested can file objections under section 5 A that the public notice of the substance of the notification under section 41 by the Collector would be necessary whereas in the present case the applicability of the provisions of section 5 A have been dispensed with under section 174 of the Act at the same time the notification under section 41 was issued
It is wholly unnecessary that the interested parties should have the requisite information of the acquisition proceedings as they are not entitled to file objections under section 5A
We are unable to accept such a contention
In our judgment the provisions of section 41 cannot be held to be mandatory in one situation and directory in another
Section 41 does not contemplate any distinction between those proceedings in which in exercise of the power under section 17 4 the appropriate government directs that the provisions of section 5 A shall not apply and where such a direction has not been made dispensing with the applicability of section 5A
It lays down in unequivocal and clear terms that both things have to be simultaneously done under section 41 ie a notification has to be published in the official gazette that the land is likely to be needed for any public purpose and the Collector has to cause notice to be given of the substance of such notification at convenient places in the locality in which the land is situated
The scheme of section 4 is that after the steps contemplated under sub section
1 have been taken the officer authorized by the Government can do the various acts set out in sub section
It is not required under section 174 of the principal Act that when a notification under section 41 is issued the direction should be made simultaneously if the State Government so desires
Such an order or direction can be made even at a later stage
The effect of the direction made under section 174 is that a declaration can be made under section 6 in respect of the land at any time after the Publication of the notification under section 41 and thereafter the Collector can take possession
But as mentioned before in a given case the appropriate government may not consider it necessary to take action under section 174 simultaneously with the notification under section 41 and it may choose to invoke its provisions only at a later stage in view of any urgency that may crop 701 up
Thus the construction of section 41 cannot be made to depend upon any action or direction which the State Government may choose to make under section 17 4 of the principal Act
In our opinion section 4 1 has to be read as an integrated provision which contains two conditions the first is that the notification in the official gazette must be published and the second is that the Collector has to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given
These two conditions must be satisfied for the purpose of compliance with the provisions of section 41
In the above view of the matter the appeals which involve the same point must succeed
They are consequently allowed and the acquisition proceedings in question in both the appeals shall stand quashed
The appellants will be entitled to costs in this Court One hearing fee
SBW Appeals allowed


Summary:
A notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on October 15 1960 for acquisition of the land in dispute
The Collector did not
cause Public notice of the substance of the notification to be announced at convenient places in the locality where the land sought to be acquired was situate as required by the second part of section 41
Under section 174 of the Act the provisions of section 5A were dispensed with
On October 28 1960 the notification under section 6 was issued
The appellant was directed to be present before the Collector in pursuance of a notice under Sec 9 on December 4 1960
On December 5 1960 the appellant filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceed ings
The petition was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court whose judgment was affirmed in Special Appeal by the Division Bench
Allowing the appeals HELD  i The law as settled by this Court is that such a notice under second part of section 41 is mandatory and unless that notice is given in accordance with the provisions contained therein the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated
Under section 42 such a notice is necessary condition for the exercise of the power of entry
Non compliance with that condition makes the entry unlawful
The purpose behind such a notice is that interested persons should know that the land is being acquired so as to prefer any objections under section 5 A which confers a valuable right 699G Khub Chand and Others vs The State of Rajasthan and Ors  and State of Mysore vs Abdul Razak Sahib CA 2361 of 1968 dt
August 11 1972 referred to
iiThe construction of S41 cannot be made to depend upon any action or direction which the State Govt
may choose to make under section 174 of the principal Act
section 41 has to be read as an integrated provision which contains two conditions both being mandatory
 Requirement of public notice in the locality cannot be rendered directly by a notification under section 174 dispensing with hearing under Sec
5A 700H