1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10791/2009 Bajranga vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10775/2009 Pooniram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10750/2009 Gangadhar & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10749/2009 Om Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order: 21/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi, for the petitioner. Reportable By the Court: (Oral). As in all the aforesaid writ petitions, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the notification dated 04.07.2008 issued by the respondents that they are being decided by this common order. 2. The said notification has been issued under Section 4 (1) and 4(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. There is no dispute about the fact that no further notification under the Land Acquisition Act other than Section 4 has been issued in the impugned proceeding so far. Confronted with the query of the Court that in view the stage of acquisition proceedings where 2 notification under Section 4 only has been issued, filing of the writ petition at this stage is premature because the Government is yet to take decision for acquiring the land in question, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned proceedings can be challenged even at this stage. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the cases of Munshi Singh & Ors. vs. Union of Inida, (1973) 2 SCC 337 and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 168. He has also referred to the case of Om Prakash Sharam & Ors. vs. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam & Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 306. 3. So far as the case of Munshi Singh (supra) and Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra) are concerned, a bare perusal of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reveals that a challenge to the acquisition proceeding in those cases were made by the petitioner at a stage subsequent to the issuance of such notification under Section 4 i.e. after issuance of notification under Section 6 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act and other subsequent notifications. In the case of Munshi Singh, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.07.1960 and notification under Section 6 and 17 was issued on 23.12.1961. Similarly in the case of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (supra), notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 12.04.1984 and notification under Section 6(1) was issued on 16.04.1984. Likewise, perusal of the judgment in the case of Omprakash Sharma (supra) reveals that in para one, the Hon'ble Apex Court had reproduced the notification which itself reveals 3 that notification under Section 17 had already been issued. 4. Therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ample clear that those were the cases wherein challenge was made at a subsequent stage and at an appropriate time when the Government had declared to acquire the land in question. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that filing of the petition at this stage, by challenging the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, is premature. The very contents of the impugned notification reveals that it is for the purpose of preliminary enquiry/survey and does not give out that a decision in respect of acquisition of land in question has been finally taken by the Government so far by making a declaration to that effect. Needless to say that the decision/declaration to acquire the land is arrived at by the Government at the stage when notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued. 6. It is apparent from the provisions of Section 4 (1) and (2) and a settled principle of law, since long, that such notification is preliminary in nature and administrative in character. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Bahori Lal vs. Land Acquisition officer & Ors., AIR 1970 Allahabad 414, had elaborately dealt with this aspect of the matter, in para 23, as under:- “23. An examination of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Act would show that what is of primary importance is that 'land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed' 4 for a public purpose and notification to that effect has to be made. Although Section 4(1) of the Act speaks of 'land in any locality', This will be clear from the third and fourth clauses of Section 4(2) in which the expressions 'whether the land is adapted for such (public) purpose' and 'the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken' respectively occur. This will further be clear from the words 'object to the acquisition of the land..........' in Section 5- A of the Act which given the right of objection to 'any person interested in any land, which has been notified under Section 4, sub-section (1)'. It seems to me that in the context and having regard to the purpose for which the notification under Section 4(1) is to be made, the expression 'locality' is of great importance. In fact, in a sense, it may be said that the key to the requirements of the notification is to be found in a very large measure in the meaning to be given to the word 'locality in Section 4 of the Act. A comparison of Section 4 with Section 6 of the Act will show that whereas under Section 4 the notification is in respect of land in any locality, the declaration under Section 6 is in respect of the particular land which is to be acquired. In Section 6 there is no mention of the work 'locality' at all. The reason for this appears to be that the Section 4 notification has previously fixed the locality and indicated the land proposed to be acquired therein, whereas the declaration under Section 6 of the Act is made in respect of that particular land, which has been ultimately decided upon as being needed for a public purpose or a Company. The only right of objection given by the Act in regard to compulsory acquisition of any land or of any land in the locality concerned is conferred by Section 5-A of the Act. This right to object can be exercised only within a period of 30 days (21 days in U.P.) from the date of the issue of the notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act. The purpose of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, therefore, is to give a notice to the persons who are likely to be affected by the proposed acquisition of the land in question, so that they may file objections, if they so desire. The locality in the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, therefore, must be described in such a manner as to give reasonable notice to all persons in that locality whose land or whose interest in the land sought to be acquired will be or is likely to be affected. The word 'locality' 5 is capable of being construed in a wide sense as also in a restricted or narrow sense. In the context and having regard to the purpose for which the notification under Sec. 4(1) is to be issued, a wide or extended meaning cannot be given to the word 'locality'. Accordingly to Shorter Oxford Dictionary the word 'locality' means; (i) the fact or quality of having a place, i.e., of having a position in place; (ii) the fact of being local; (iii) the features of a particular place; and (iv) the place in which an object is or is to be found. In the context in which the word 'locality' occurs in Section 4(1) of the Act it must mean the place in which the land which is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose is situate. In other words, the land is to be localised with reference to the particular place in which it is situate. This can only be done by an adequate description of the locality. If the description of the locality is too vague or by such description a very large area is covered, the identity of the land cannot be said to have been localised by the notification. It has already been mentioned that the purpose of the notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act appears to be to give a notice of warning to all persons interest in the land notified that the same or part of it may be ultimately acquired by issuing a declaration in that behalf under Section 6 of the Act. The notice of warning is given for two purposes. One of the purpose is if they so desire, file objections against the acquisition of the land notified or of any land in the locality. The second purpose is to fix the date with reference to which ultimately compensation is to be paid for the land acquired. This would be clear from the first clause of Sec. 23, which is as under:- “The market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1).” Besides these two purposes, the object of the notification is to empower the doing of the varous acts, which, upon a notification being made, can be done under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. In the circumstances, if an extended or wide meaning is given to the 'locality' the purpose of giving the notice or the warning may be defeated and, instead, the powers given under sub-section (2) of Section 6 4 of the Act may assume a arbitrary and oppressive proportion. This could never have been intended by the legislature. It is true that no exact meaning can be given to the word 'locality' in Section 4(1) of the Act. Whether in a given case the locality has been sufficiently described or not may depend on the nature of the land, the area of the land proposed to be acquired, the situation or the site of the land with reference to the part of the village or the city in which the land lies. If the land is situate in a very small village of which the area is very small village of which the area is very small, it may be that the description of the locality by the mention of the village may be sufficient. If, however, the land is situate in a big village of which the area is considerable, the mere mention of the village may not sufficiently answer the description of the locality. In a city the mere mention of the city in which the land is situate can hardly be accepted in any case as a sufficient description of the locality. In the judgment given by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1237 of 1959, D/- 21-9-1961 (All) this aspect of the matter has been dealt with, though not directly. This will be clear from the following observations made in the said judgment:- “It does not appear to be necessary that the exact land proposed to be acquired to should be described in the notification, and thee should be a sufficient description of the locality should bear some reasonable proportion to be area of the land proposed to be acquired.” What has been stated above may aptly be applicable to cases in which the notification under Section 4(1) does not contain any note to the effect that the plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector. This will require an examination of the question as to whether such a note would obviate the necessity of giving a sufficient description of the locality according to the circumstances of the case to which the notification relates.” Later on, in the case of N. Krishnappa Mudaliar & Anr. vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 1 M.L.J. 7 406, it had been held by the Madras High Court in para 3, which reads thus:- “3. More than above this, the writ petition is to quash the notification under section 4 (1). It is well-settled law that section 4 (1) notification is purely preliminary in nature and is administrative in character, and no writ will lie to quash such a notification.” 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is premature and not maintainable at this stage. However, the petitioner may challenge the proceedings and the notification under Section 6 if issued by the respondent State, after declaration to acquire the land. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. tikam/-Jr.P.A. Item no.13