Case: Narendrajit Singh Anr Vs. State Of U.P. &amp; Anr

enter upon and take possession of the land if the same be needed owing to any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency it becomes necessary for any Railway administration to acquire the immediate possession of any land or for incidental purposes. Sub-section (4) of the section provides :"In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government may direct that the provisions of Section 5-A shall not apply, and, if it does so direct, a declaration may be made under Section 6 in respect of the land al any time after the publication of the notification under Sec. 4, sub-section (1)."8. It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the Act that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under Section 4. Even in extremely urgent cases like those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 17, the notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non. In some cases the Government may not follow up the notification under sub-section (1) by further proceedings specially where it finds that the land was unsuited for the purpose for which it is required. But the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and in our opinion a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of that provision of law must be held to be bad. 9. Section 4 (1) does not require that the identity of the lands which may ultimately be acquired should be specified but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the locality in which the land is needed. In the instant cases the notifications suffer from a very serious defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified. The notification merely showed that lands mentioned in the schedule were needed. The schedule in its turn though it contained the heading District, Pargana, Mauza and approximate area, gave no particulars of the same and all that was mentioned by way of a note was that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collector of Rampur. As no details were given, the only indication about the locality of the lands was possibly the District of Rampur inasmuch as the plan of the land was to be found in the office of the Collector of the same district. Certainly the Act did not intend that all the persons owning land in a district should rush to the Collectors office to find out whether his lands were covered by the notification. 10. It was urged before us that the notification was in terms of the section and that the petitioners could not complain inasmuch as the defect was remedied by the notification under S. 6 which was issued within a fortnight after the Section 4 notification. In our view this contention cannot be accepted. Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a serious nature. In the case of Babu Barkya Thakur, (1961) 1 SCR128 = (AIR 1960 SC 1203 ) (supra) it was pointed out by this Court that"The proceedings begin with a Government notification under Section 4 that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose".It is well known that a person interested in the land which is affected by any notification under Sec. 4 (1) may immediately object to it and take proceedings in Court against it. In Smt. Somavanti v. State of Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 774 = (AIR 1963 SC 151 ), one of the main questions before this Court was whether a notification under Section 4 (1) and one under Section 6 (1) could be issued simultaneously. Although the Court took the view that where Section 5-A was not in the way there was no irregularity in publishing the notifications on the same day, yet it observed that :"notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the making of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6".In our view the defect in a notification under Section 4 (1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Section 6 (l).In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification under Section 6 (1) could not be given in the one under Section 4 (1).The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the petitioners went to Court after the issue of the notification under Section 6 (1). 11. Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in cases of urgency a notification under Sec. 4 (1) was not necessary, a suitable provision would have been made in Section 17 for that purpose. The provisions of that section show that even in cases of extreme urgency like the maintenance of railway traffic by reason of any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, the Legislature only thought it fit to bypass the provisions of Section 5-A but not those of Section 4, sub-section (1). 12. In this view, we did not think It necessary to hear Mr. Gupte on the other points.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. It becomes clear from a perusal of the said sections of the Act that the process of acquisition must start with a notification under Section 4. Even in extremely urgent cases like those mentioned in(2) of Section 17, the notification under Sec. 4 is a sine qua non. In some cases the Government may not follow up the notification under(1) by further proceedings specially where it finds that the land was unsuited for the purpose for which it is required. But the issue of a notification under(1) of Section 4 is a condition precedent to the exercise of any further powers under the Act and in our opinion a notification which does not comply with the essential requirement of that provision of law must be held to be bad.Section 4 (1) does not require that the identity of the lands which may ultimately be acquired should be specified but it enjoins upon the Government the duty to specify the locality in which the land is needed. In the instant cases the notifications suffer from a very serious defect in that the locality where the lands were needed was not specified. The notification merely showed that lands mentioned in the schedule were needed. The schedule in its turn though it contained the heading District, Pargana, Mauza and approximate area, gave no particulars of the same and all that was mentioned by way of a note was that the plan of the land might be inspected in the office of the Collector of Rampur. As no details were given, the only indication about the locality of the lands was possibly the District of Rampur inasmuch as the plan of the land was to be found in the office of the Collector of the same district. Certainly the Act did not intend that all the persons owning land in a district should rush to the Collectors office to find out whether his lands were covered by the notification.t was urged before us that the notification was in terms of the section and that the petitioners could not complain inasmuch as the defect was remedied by the notification under S. 6 which was issued within a fortnight after the Section 4 notification.In our view this contention cannot be accepted. Any notification which is the first step towards depriving a man of his property must be strictly construed and Courts ought not to tolerate any lapse on the part of the acquiring authority in the issue of such notification if it be of a seriousour view the defect in a notification under Section 4 (1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Section 6 (l).In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification under Section 6 (1) could not be given in the one under Section 4 (1).The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the petitioners went to Court after the issue of the notification under Section 6 (1).Moreover if it was the intention of the Legislature that in cases of urgency a notification under Sec. 4 (1) was not necessary, a suitable provision would have been made in Section 17 for that purpose. The provisions of that section show that even in cases of extreme urgency like the maintenance of railway traffic by reason of any sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency, the Legislature only thought it fit to bypass the provisions of Sectionbut not those of Section 4,. In this view, we did not think It necessary to hear Mr. Gupte on the other points.